People v. Schroeder

Opinion

CHRISTIAN, J.

John F. Schroeder appeals from a probation order which was rendered after a jury found him guilty of four counts of grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. 1) and one count of conspiracy (Pen. Code, § 182).

Appellant operated as a wholesaler of used automobiles under the title, “Courtesy Auto Sales.” Assisted by Edward Zinski, Jr., and other accomplices some of whom testified at trial, appellant operated at Courtesy Auto Sales and at other premises an extensive business of fraudulently reselling used cars, the odomoters of which had been rolled back. There was abundant evidence that this criminal operation was guided and directed by appellant. The four counts of grand theft of which the jury found appellant guilty were based upon specific fraudulent sales for which, under the evidence, appellant was accountable.

Appellant contends that it was a deprivation of due process to deny him a postindictment preliminary hearing. Appellant recognizes that in

Hawkins

v.

Superior Court

(1978) 22 Cal.3d 584 [150 Cal.Rptr. 435, 586 P.2d 916], the California Supreme Court declared that the new California rule requiring postindictment preliminary hearings in felony cases is applicable only “to those indicted defendants who have not entered a plea at the time

[Hawkins]

becomes final.” (22 Cal.3d at p. 594.) Appellant pleaded not guilty several months before the

Hawkins

opinion became final; therefore, the new rule is inapplicable to this case.

Appellant argues that

Hawkins

was based on an equal protection analysis, and contends that he should receive relief on a theory that due

[733]

process has been violated. The contention is entirely unsupported by authority; this court could not hold the grand jury procedure to be a deprivation of due process where such proceedings are expressly recognized and provided for in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and in article I, section 14, of the Constitution of California.