Nelson v. Justice Court

California Court of Appeal Nov 2, 1978 No. Civ. 43792Published

Before: Christian

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the justice court's minutes, which explicitly recited that the defendant was informed of and waived his constitutional rights, were sufficient to establish compliance with Boykin-Tahl requirements in the absence of contradictory evidence. Furthermore, unpublished appellate department decisions are not binding authority under California Rules of Court, rule 977.

Issues

Whether unpublished appellate department decisions constitute binding authority under the doctrine of stare decisis.
Whether justice court minutes reciting a knowing and intelligent waiver of rights satisfy Boykin-Tahl requirements when not contradicted by other evidence.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Judicial decisions which the court and counsel were precluded from citing necessarily did not constitute authority binding upon the justice court.”

“It was not error to deny a writ to compel the justice court to vacate the prior conviction.”

Opinion

CHRISTIAN, J.

Floyd Leon Nelson appeals from a judgment by which the superior court denied a writ to compel respondent justice court to vacate a 1975 conviction of violating Vehicle Code section 23102, subdivision (a), (drunk driving).

[66]

Plaintiff has now been charged with a new offense of drunk driving. The purpose of the present proceeding is to defeat if possible the allegation in the new complaint that appellant has suffered a prior conviction of drunk driving.

No reporter’s transcript has been presented reflecting colloquy in the justice court at the time when appellant was arraigned and pleaded guilty to the 1975 drunk driving charge. Inferably the only record of that hearing is the justice court’s minutes, which contain the following: “Defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his rights to an attorney, to a trial by jury, to confront his accusers, time for plea, his privilege against self-incrimination and entered a plea of guilty to a violation of Section 23102a CVC, with a full understanding of the charge and the consequences of his plea . . . .” Appellant contends that, in two other cases, the appellate division of the superior court has determined that a docket entry identical to that quoted above does not meet

Boykin-Tahl

requirements which are applicable to the taking of a plea of guilty to a misdemeanor. (See

Mills

Municipal Court

(1973) 10 Cal.3d 288 [110 Cal.Rptr. 329, 515 P.2d 273].) It is contended, citing

Auto Equity Sales, Inc.

Superior Court

(1962) 57 Cal.2d 450 [20 Cal.Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937], that the refusal of the justice court to follow a decision of the appellate department of the superior court was contrary to the doctrine of stare decisis and constituted an act in excess of jurisdiction. It is true that when an appellate court has given a direction in a particular cause, that direction establishes the law of the case and is binding upon the trial court when it takes further proceedings in the same cause. (6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed.) Appeal, § 634, p. 4553.) But the two prior decisions of the appellate department of the superior court, referred to by appellant, did not establish the law of the case for the cause now under review. The decisions in

Nelson v. Justice Court

AI Brief

CHRISTIAN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief