People v. Bowie

California Court of Appeal Feb 15, 1962 No. Crim. 3952Published

Before: Kaufman

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court did not err in relying on the clerk's minutes regarding the submission of the case on the preliminary hearing transcript, and that there was sufficient evidence independent of that transcript to support the conviction.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in permitting the introduction of the preliminary hearing transcript without the appellant's informed consent.
Whether the clerk's minutes regarding the submission of the case on the transcript are controlling over ambiguous reporter's transcript entries.
Whether the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The People argue, however, that under the circumstances, the clerk’s minutes are controlling under the circumstances here presented. We agree.”

“From the above, it is manifestly clear that apart from the evidence of the preliminary examination, there was ample evidence to support the conviction for assault with a deadly weapon in violation of section 245 of the Penal Code.”

[292]

KAUFMAN, P. J.

By an information dated January 6, 1961, appellant, William Bowie, was charged with two counts of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to commit murder, in violation of section 217 of the Penal Code: the first against one Pete Coletsos on December 3; the second against his wife, Irene Bowie, on the same date. Appellant was duly arraigned, waived a jury trial, and entered pleas of not guilty to each of the counts of the information. On this appeal from the judgment

finding him guilty of one count of assault against Pete Coletsos in violation of section 245 of the Penal Code, the argument is that the trial court erred in permitting the introduction of the transcript of the preliminary hearing without the appellant’s stipulation or consent, as he was not represented by counsel, and as such transcript constituted the basis for the judgment of conviction. There is no merit in either of these contentions.

The record reveals the following: at the time of his arraignment and plea, on January 11, the appellant appeared in propria persona and stated that he wanted a jury trial and that he wished to exercise his constitutional prerogative and act as his counsel. By consent, the matter was set for trial on February 9,1961. Thereafter, at the appellant’s request, the matter was advanced to January 13, when the following ensued: “The Defendant : At this time, your Honor, after due thought and consideration, I would like to waive the jury trial, submit myself to the judgment of this Court at the earliest possible trial date, if I may. The Court : You want to waive a jury trial, is that it? The Defendant: Yes, sir. The Clerk: Consent to that? Mr. Maurer: Yes, the People consent. The Court: All right, what date? Mr. Maurer: Would you want to submit the matter on the transcript? Mr. Dresow: Oh, don’t take advantage of him that way. He doesn’t understand that. Why don’t you set it down for the 20th, Friday, the 20th? He doesn’t understand that. Let the Court-The Court: Why don’t you, why don’t you let the Public Defender-Mr. Dresow: We don’t want him, Judge, but I don’t want him taken advantage of. The Court: Why don’t you let him help you on this matter. You’re waiving a jury trial, and we ’re putting it down for-Mr. Maurer : February 20th. Mr. Dresow : January 20th. The Court : You talk to the District Attorney. The Defendant : May I enter a plea for my hearing in Municipal Court to be given to

People v. Bowie

AI Brief

KAUFMAN, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief