People v. Williamson

Opinion

CLARK, J.

Thirty-eight days after his last alleged sale of heroin to narcotics officers, defendant was arrested and charged with five counts of violating section 11501 of the Health and Safety Code. After the withdrawal of his motion pursuant to section 1538.5 of the Penal Code, he waived trial by jury and stipulated to- submit the case on the transcript of the preliminary hearing, but reserved the right to offer further testimony and to renew all motions, objections and stipulations made at the prelimi

[742]

nary hearing. After .the court had read the preliminary transcript, but prior to judgment, defendant argued two legal motions without presenting further testimony. He was found guilty as charged.

Defendant now seeks reversal of his conviction, contending unconstitutional delay between the last sale and his arrest; failure of the court to explain the stipulation was tantamount to a plea of guilty; failure to waive his privilege against compulsory self-incrimination; and denial of effective assistance of counsel.

Delay

Defendant fails to show, and the record does not reveal, facts which suggest prejudice resulting from mere passage of time between defendant’s last criminal act and his arrest. (See

People

v.

Wright

(1969) 2 Cal.App.3d 732 [82 Cal.Rptr. 859].) The first contention is therefore rejected.

Stipulation

Defendant next contends the stipulation to submit the case to the trial court on the transcript of the preliminary hearing was tantamount to a plea of guilty as defined by

In re Mosley

(1970) 1 Cal.3d 913 [83 Cal.Rptr. 809, 464 P.2d 473] but the trial judge failed to inform him so. He further argues, while he may have waived his rights to a jury trial and to confrontation of witnesses, he did not specifically waive his right to freedom from compulsory self-incrimination as required by the same case.