People v. McFerran

California Court of Appeal Dec 17, 1962 No. Crim. 1740Published

Before: Griffin

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant does not have an absolute right to represent themselves while simultaneously retaining counsel as an assistant, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's request to proceed in propria persona. Furthermore, the court found no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel or error in the admission of prison records.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's request to represent himself with counsel acting as an assistant.
Whether the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel.
Whether the trial court erred in admitting certified prison records into evidence.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Neither the express provisions of California law nor general considerations of fairness require that an intelligent, competent defendant who obdurately insists upon controlling and conducting his own defense should be entitled as a matter of right to the services of counsel to act under defendant’s control.”

“An attorney is not responsible for the trail of evidence of guilt left by his client.”

GRIFFIN, P. J.

Defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of the crime of escape from a state prison, in violation of Penal Code, section 4530. He has appealed from the judgment of conviction.

The evidence shows that on October 26, 1959, defendant was serving a term in the Chino State Prison for conspiracy to commit extortion (Pen. Code, § 182). On that day, defendant was present at 4:30 or 4:40 in the afternoon, but thereafter, about 6 :30 or 6 :40 p. m., he could not be found on the prison grounds. Correction Officer Derho conducted a search and was unable to discover defendant's whereabouts.

A deputy sheriff of San Bernardino County testified that on February 16, 1962, he went to Leavenworth, Kansas and took defendant into custody. While they were traveling back to California, defendant told the deputy sheriff that he had left the state prison facility and that he had done so because he had become despondent over the denial of his wife’s application for parole.

Defendant’s first contention is that the trial court erroneously denied him the right to defend himself in propria persona. The record indicates that at the time of the arraignment in the superior court, defendant was represented by the public defender. Thereafter the public defender requested that this appointment be vacated and his motion was granted. Mr. Rosso was appointed to handle the defense. Some ten days later, Mr. Rosso asked to be relieved of the defense of the case and his motion was denied. At that time, defendant indicated that he was not dissatisfied with his attorney. It is clear that the trial court was not required to find another attorney for defendant because defendant and Ms attorney disagreed over legal questions.

(People

Hughes,

[7]

57 Cal.2d 89, 98 [17 Cal.Rptr. 617, 367 P.2d 33] ;

People

Helton,

202 Cal.App.2d 622, 625 [20 Cal.Rptr. 867].)

People v. McFerran

AI Brief

GRIFFIN, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief