In Re McCoy

California Supreme Court Jun 15, 1948 No. Crim. 4819Published

Before: Edmonds

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the petitioner was denied his constitutional right to counsel and that, while his conviction was void, he should be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings rather than discharged from custody.

Issues

Whether the petitioner was denied his constitutional right to counsel during his criminal proceedings.
Whether a petitioner whose conviction is void due to a denial of counsel may be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings instead of being discharged.

Disposition. remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the refusal to grant petitioner’s request for counsel clearly constituted a denial of fundamental civil rights.”

“the writ is discharged and the petitioner is remanded to the custody of the sheriff for further proceedings in the police court of the city of Oakland, in conformity with his constitutional right to counsel.”

EDMONDS, J.

Albert Willie McCoy pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge and was sentenced to a term in the county jail. This court granted a writ of habeas corpus upon his petition which alleged that he was denied counsel and not advised of his legal rights. The State concedes that the judge of the police court by whom he was sentenced did not inform McCoy as to his right to counsel. By stipulation, the other issues have been submitted for decision upon affidavits, the prior testimony of McCoy, and certain other persons.

In an affidavit, McCoy states that, after his arrest upon a Saturday night, he asked the officer, who was operating the elevator in the Oakland city jail, if he could “get in touch with his people.” The officer said “No.” He noticed some

[75]

of the prisoners using the telephone, and asked one of the jailors if he could “call some of his people, so they could get him a lawyer.” The jailor refused to let him do so. Between the time he was placed in jail and the following Monday morning when he was taken before a police judge for arraignment, he asked “at least three different jailors could he call out or write a letter to his folks, so they could get him a lawyer.” In each instance, permission was refused and the last jailor to whom he spoke told him he could not telephone or write a letter until after he appeared in court.

On Monday morning, enroute to the court, he asked the officer in charge of him for an attorney and was told that he could not get one “until he went back upstairs [to the jail].” In court, the clerk read the complaint to him and “he again said in a soft voice to the officer, couldn’t he get a lawyer; the officer motioned him to keep quiet, and said ‘answer the Clerk’; the Clerk in the meantime had asked affiant, was he guilty or not guilty; the Clerk again repeated the question, and affiant answered in the affirmative; the officer motioned affiant to return to the prisoner’s dock, and as affiant started to same, he again asked the officer, could he get a lawyer, and said officer, as he nudged affiant to speed him back in the stock, replied that affiant could get a lawyer when he got out. ’ ’

After these proceedings, the affidavit concludes, in the city jail, before he was taken to the county jail, he asked the officer, who later took him there, if he could get a lawyer. This officer took him to a desk and he was shown a yellow sheet with the names of a number of lawyers on it, and he “was told to sign a slip for the lawyer he wanted.” He picked the name of one of them “at random” and immediately after signing the request he was taken to the county jail. He never heard from nor saw the lawyer whose name he selected. He had not been arrested before and knew nothing about jail rules.

In Re McCoy

AI Brief

EDMONDS, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief