Hartman v. Municipal Court

California Court of Appeal Dec 10, 1973 No. Civ. 32244Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the appellant's prior misdemeanor drunk driving conviction was constitutionally valid because he was advised of his constitutional rights and waived them upon entering his plea. Furthermore, the court held that the appellant did not need to be advised of potential penalties for a future second offense at the time of his first conviction.

Issues

Whether the appellant's prior misdemeanor guilty plea was constitutionally valid under Boykin-Tahl requirements.
Whether the appellant was required to be advised of the consequences of a future second conviction at the time of his first plea.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The record clearly shows that advice regarding their constitutional rights was given to the assembled defendants prior to the entry of their pleas.”

“To advise appellant of the penalties for a second conviction of section 23102 of the Vehicle Code would have been premature.”

“Accordingly, appellant’s first conviction was constitutionally valid and can be charged as a prior.”

Opinion

THE COURT.

Appellant was charged with misdemeanor drunk driving in violation of section 23102 of the Vehicle Code in a complaint which also charged a prior conviction of a violation of section 23102. Appellant moved to strike the prior conviction on constitutional grounds. The municipal court denied his motion. Appellant’s petition for writ of mandate in the superior court was denied. He appeals.

Even prior to the pronouncement in

Mills

Municipal Court

(1973) 10 Cal.3d 288 [110 Cal.Rptr. 329, 515 P.2d 273], at least two Court of Appeal decisions had concluded that the

Boykin-Tahl (Boykin

Alabama

(1969) 395 U.S. 238 [23 L.Ed.2d 274, 89 S.Ct. 1709];

In re Tahl

(1969) 1 Cal.3d 122 [81 Cal.Rptr. 577, 460 P.2d 449]) requirement of an explicit

[893]

“on the record” waiver of a defendant’s constitutional rights was applicable to the acceptance of all guilty pleas—felonies and misdemeanors—whenever the defendant appeared before the court either in person or by counsel.

(Cooper

Justice Court

(1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 286 [104 Cal.Rptr. 543] [hg. den.];

In re Gannon

(1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 731 [103 Cal.Rptr. 224].) It had also been recognized that “when a defendant appears in court to plead to a misdemeanor offense, the practicalities of the crowded inferior courts will permit some deviation from the strict felony procedure so long as the constitutional rights of defendants are respected.”

Hartman v. Municipal Court

AI Brief

THE COURT.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief