People v. Green

California Court of Appeal Apr 17, 1961 No. Crim. 3836Published

Before: Kaufman

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant made a valid, intelligent waiver of his right to counsel, as the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing him to proceed in propria persona after confirming his awareness of his rights.

Issues

Whether the defendant made an intelligent waiver of his right to counsel under the state and federal Constitutions.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by permitting the defendant to represent himself without further inquiry into his education and experience.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Whether a waiver in a particular case meets this standard is largely a matter for the determination of the trial judge, and his decision will not be disturbed on review in the absence of an abuse of discretion”

KAUFMAN, P. J.

On February 18, 1960, appellant, Aaron C. Green, and his codefendants, Joe Lewis and Oscar G. Shaw, were charged by indictment with three counts of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245); the codefendant, A. Frazier, was charged with one count of robbery and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon. They were arraigned on February 26, and the matter was continued to March 4, at which time, they entered pleas of not guilty on all counts. The matter was then continued by consent to March 17, then to April 11, and finally to April 18 for trial. On all of these occasions, all the codefendants were represented by the public defender.

On April 18, 1960, all the defendants appeared for trial. Appellant Green on being advised of his right to counsel,

[282]

personally waived this right and elected to represent himself. A jury was empaneled. After three days of trial, the jury returned its verdict, finding the appellant guilty of first degree robbery as charged in counts four and five, and acquitting him on the other three counts; Shaw and Lewis were each found guilty of one count of assault with a deadly weapon and two counts of robbery in the first degree; Frazier was found not guilty on all three counts.

On this appeal by the appellant Green from the judgment of conviction and order denying his motion for new trial entered on the verdict, the only question is whether he properly waived counsel. The record indicates that when the trial commenced, the following ensued:

“Mr. Auslen : If your Honor please, we have entered into a discussion with reference to the advisability of requesting a daily transcript in this ease, and it occurred to us that since one of the defendants was representing himself, perhaps it would be wise to have a daily transcript.

“And so, we jointly request a daily transcript, your Honor.

“Mr. McNamara : I think so, your Honor.

“The Court : All right. That will be the order of the Court, then.

“The Court is just thinking that you have represented Mr. Green, you appeared for Mr. Green at previous hearings, and you were advised just before coming into court that Mr. Green has decided to represent himself. I just want to make it clear that that is a decision of your own choice, Mr. Green, is that correct ?

People v. Green

AI Brief

KAUFMAN, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief