People v. Henderson

California Court of Appeal Nov 16, 1953 No. Crim. 5051Published

Before: Moore

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant who pleads guilty with the advice of counsel, after being informed by the court and prosecutor that the charge is a felony, cannot later challenge the conviction based on alleged extrajudicial conversations or claims of perjured evidence not supported by the record.

Issues

Whether the appellant was misled into believing he was pleading guilty to a misdemeanor rather than a felony.
Whether the appellant's claims of false evidence and extrajudicial promises by counsel provide grounds for relief on appeal.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“He knew he was charged with having committed a felony; the court told him; the prosecutor told him; he pleaded guilty in open court with his attorney at his side.”

“The plea of guilty disposed of every issue previously raised by his originally pleading not guilty.”

“There is nothing a reviewing court can do about talk outside of a court proceeding in the absence of an appropriate record thereof by affidavit or otherwise.”

MOORE, P. J.

Having pleaded guilty to the charge of taking and driving an automobile of a Los Angeles corporate merchant without its consent, with intent to deprive the owner of its title to and possession of the vehicle (Veh. Code, § 503), appellant has appealed from the judgment. The six assignments of error may be summed up in two, to wit: (1) appellant thought he was pleading guilty to a misdemeanor; (2) the evidence against him was false, fraudulent and perjured. The record seems to contradict such claims.

At the arraignment, the court stated to appellant that he was charged

by the pleading “with the crime of a violation of section 503 of the Vehicle Code ... a felony, which involves the operation of a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner. Heretofore, you have pleaded not guilty to this charge, and I am advised by your counsel . . . that you desire to plead guilty; is that true?” After he had answered, “Yes,” the court inquired whether appellant was acting on his own free will, whether anybody had promised him any advantage for pleading guilty, and whether he understood that ‘ ‘ any penalty to be imposed rests entirely with the judge?” Appellant replied in the affirmative. Thereupon, the prosecuting attorney repeated the number of the section of the Vehicle Code, the violation thereof, “a felony. At this time how do you plead, guilty or not guilty ? ’ ’ To that question appellant answered, “Guilty.”

From such proceedings it is clear that the arraignment was in complete compliance with the statute (Pen. Code, § 988) which prescribes the manner of an arraignment, including the delivery of a true copy of the accusatory pleading. Inasmuch as the “official duty” of the prosecutor is presumed to have been “regularly performed” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1963, subsec. 15), and no proof having been made that would dispel such presumption, appellant cannot avoid the resulting conclusion that appellant received a copy of the information which disclosed that the crime to which he pleaded guilty was a felony.

By virtue of the facts that (1) appellant had the advice of counsel at all stages of the proceeding, and (2) the plea was impliedly admitted to have been properly obtained, he thereby admitted every element entering into the offense

[300]

People v. Henderson

AI Brief

MOORE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief