People v. Horton

California Court of Appeal Oct 26, 1959 No. Crim 1419Published

Before: Griffin

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant was denied his right to counsel during the arraignment for judgment and sentencing, necessitating a remand for the limited purpose of rearraigning the defendant with counsel present.

Issues

Whether a guilty plea requires supporting evidence.
Whether a guilty plea can be withdrawn based on unproven claims of attorney fraud.
Whether the absence of counsel during the pronouncement of judgment constitutes a violation of the defendant's rights.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is a fundamental principle that persons charged with and convicted of public crimes are entitled to the services of their attorneys at all stages of the proceedings”

“The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded, but for the sole purpose of rearraigning the defendant for judgment and the pronouncing of judgment.”

GRIFFIN, P. J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment entered following his plea of guilty to one count charging a violation of Penal Code, section 245 (assault with a deadly weapon), two other counts charging the same offense having been dismissed. The defendant was arraigned on December 17, 1958, and, with counsel present, entered his plea of guilty and applied for probation. Hearing on said application and pronouncement of judgment were continued to December 29, 1958, at which time probation was denied and the court proceeded to pronounce judgment and sentence.

When the defendant was asked if he knew of any reason why judgment should not be passed, he indicated that he desired to talk to his attorney, and the court then declared a recess (striking from the record what appeared to be a previous pronouncement of judgment and sentence) to give the defendant an opportunity to talk to his attorney. When the matter was again called, the record discloses that the defendant was present but his attorney had departed. Upon being asked by the court if there was any reason why judgment should not be pronounced, the defendant stated, “Well, there might be, but frankly I don’t know. As I said, I don’t know anything about law.” The defendant then stated that he had no objection to be sentenced in the absence of his attorney. Judgment and sentence were then pronounced, and the defendant was sentenced to the state prison for the term pre

[742]

scribed by law. Thereafter the defendant filed what purported to be a notice of appeal from the judgment and requested this court to appoint an attorney to represent him on his appeal.

Defendant and his appointed counsel in the proceedings prior to judgment were requested to inform this court of any possible reversible errors in the record. Defendant’s former counsel indicated that no reversible error existed to his knowledge but defendant raised several points hereafter discussed. This court then made an independent examination of the record and determined that it would be of no value to the defendant or helpful to this court to have appellate counsel appointed.

(People

Hyde,

People v. Horton

AI Brief

GRIFFIN, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief