People v. Mullane
Before: Herndon
HERNDON, J.
Our original opinion in this case was filed on July 18, 1960, and for a statement of the factual background and the issues, reference is made thereto.
(People
v.
Mullane,
182 Cal.App.2d 765 [6 Cal.Rptr. 341].)
In accordance with procedure formerly followed, we made an examination of the record for the purpose of determining whether or not counsel should be appointed to represent appellant on his appeal. We then concluded that such appointment would be neither advantageous to appellant nor helpful to this court. However, upon motion of appellant, following the decision in
Douglas
v.
State of California,
372 U.S. 353 [83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811], the remittitur heretofore filed was ordered recalled and present counsel was appointed.
Although appointed counsel has fulfilled his duties conscientiously and with commendable zeal, his brief filed herein has suggested no error or inaccuracy in any of the statements or rulings made in our earlier decision. Insofar as the assignments of error therein considered may be deemed reasserted on this second hearing, our decision heretofore rendered is hereby adopted in its entirety as the present judgment of this court. However, appointed counsel has reframed and enlarged somewhat upon the arguments previously made. For this reason certain additional comments are deemed appropriate.
Initially, it has been suggested that the attorney employed by defendant to represent him in the court below
[639]
gave him only “pro forma” or “token” assistance and not the “effective” assistance required to meet constitutional requirements. However, the record definitely refutes' this assertion of appellant. It reveals that counsel selected by appellant represented him at each stage in the proceedings that culminated in the probation and sentence hearing here being considered. It cannot fairly be said that counsel made only a “pro forma” appearance without having adequate time to become acquainted with the facts and with any defenses appellant might have considered available to him.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)