In Re Jones

California Court of Appeal Oct 25, 1948 No. Crim. 2027Published

Before: Peek

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the petitioner's conviction was void because the trial court failed to ensure a competent and intelligent waiver of counsel, particularly given the petitioner's illiteracy, physical condition, and lack of understanding of the charges.

Issues

Whether the trial court failed to protect the petitioner's constitutional right to counsel by failing to ascertain if his waiver was intelligent and competent.

Disposition. remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In order for a trial judge to determine whether there has been a competent and intelligent waiver of counsel, he must first ascertain whether the defendant clearly understands the nature and effect of his waiver.”

“Since the judgment is void for the reasons herein set forth, it is set aside and the cause is remanded -to the trial court for further proceedings.”

PEEK, J.

By habeas corpus petitioner challenges the proceedings under which he was sentenced to life imprisonment on a charge of murder in the first degree. Although various grounds are alleged as a basis for his petition it appears that only one need be considered, to wit: the failure of the trial court to properly inform him of his constitutional rights. Petitioner’s contention in this regard is that he was neither informed of the right nor was he given the opportunity to have the advice of counsel and that he did not waive such right.

The facts disclosed by the meager record before us are that-petitioner was arrested on or about June 1, 1924, and on June 3, by a complaint filed in the Justice Court of Oroville Township, was charged with murder in the first degree. During the course of his arrest he was shot twice, once with a revolver or rifle, the bullet passing through his body, and once with a shotgun. A preliminary examination was held on the morning of June 6, and he was held to answer

[168]

in the superior court of that county. The minutes of the preliminary hearing state that the petitioner “was present in court without counsel” and that he had “previously been informed of his legal rights by the court.” Later on the same morning he was arraigned in the superior court and pleaded guilty to the crime as charged. The pertinent portions of the minutes of the proceedings on arraignment in the superior court state that the “defendant was present without counsel and states that he does not desire counsel,” that the clerk read the information and gave a copy to the defendant, that the defendant pleaded guilty to the offense charged, and that he waived time for sentencing. The minutes of the proceedings at the time sentence was pronounced the following day likewise show that the defendant “was present without counsel.”

The recent decision of the Supreme Court of this state

(People

Chesser,

29 Cal.2d 815 [178 P.2d 761]) and of the Supreme Court of the United States

(Von Moltke

In Re Jones

AI Brief

PEEK, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief