People v. Emigh

SCHOTTKY, J.

Howard I. Emigh was charged with three violations of section 476a of the Penal Code. Each count of the information charged a prior conviction of forgery. At the time of the arraignment the public defender was appointed to represent Mm. The public defender waived the arraignment, the reading of the information, and a statement of the defendant’s rights. The defendant then entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity to Count III of the information and specifically entered a plea of guilty to Count III and admitted the prior conviction. Counts I and II of the information were then dismissed. Two psychiatrists were appointed to examine the defendant. The insanity hearing was set. The defendant waived a jury trial. The issue was submitted to the trial judge on the report filed by the psychiatrists. Defense counsel waived the right to cross-examine the doctors. Defendant was found to be sane, judgment was entered, and this appeal followed.

A plea of guilty is an admission of defendant’s guilt and of every element of the crime charged.

(People

v.

Clarke,

168 Cal.App.2d 342 [335 P.2d 775].) A judgment on a plea of guilty is not appealable on the merits.

(People

v.

Rose,

171 Cal.App.2d 171 [339 P.2d 954].) The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding that appellant was sane is not challenged.

Appellant contends that he was not properly informed of his constitutional rights; that he was entitled to the aid of counsel at all stages of the proceedings, including the preliminary examination; and that he was not informed of the effect of a plea o„ guilty and a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.

Section 987 of the Penal Code requires that if the de

[394]

fendant appears for arraignment without counsel, he must be informed of his right to counsel before being arraigned and must be asked if he desires counsel. This procedure was followed. Section 988 of the Penal Code provides that the arraignment consists in reading the accusatory pleading to the defendant, delivering a true copy of the pleading to him, and asking whether or not he pleads guilty or not guilty. In the instant ease the reading of the accusatory pleading was waived by counsel. Defense counsel stated that he waived the reading of the information. He stated that the defendant was aware of his rights and counsel asked the defendant, “is that correct, sir?” The appellant replied, “yes.”