People v. Taylor

California Court of Appeal Feb 26, 1968 No. Crim. 13720Published

Before: Stephens

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an indigent defendant does not have a constitutional right to the appointment of private counsel in lieu of the public defender absent a showing of a valid reason for the request. The right to counsel is satisfied by the appointment of the public defender, and a defendant is not entitled to choose any particular attorney.

Issues

Whether an indigent defendant has a constitutional right to the appointment of private counsel instead of the public defender.
Whether the denial of a request for private counsel violates the equal protection rights of an indigent defendant.

Disposition. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the right to counsel is satisfied by the appointment of the public defender, and that a defendant does not have the right to have any particular attorney appointed.”

“we see no compelling reason to grant what has every appearance of a mere whim of the defendant.”

STEPHENS, J.

In an information filed by the District Attorney of Los Angeles County, defendant was accused in three counts. In count 1, he was accused of violating Penal Code, section 459 (burglary); in count 2, with violating Penal Code, section 209 (kidnaping for the purpose of robbery) ; and in count 3, with violating Penal Code, section 261.3 (forcible rape). Defendant was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. On November 22, 1966, the defendant requested a reduction in bail, a hearing under Penal Code, section 995, and the appointment of a private attorney in lieu of the public defender. All three requests were denied. Trial by jury was begun on December 16, 1966, and on motion of the People, count 2 of the information was amended to charge simple kidnaping only. The jury was unable to reach a verdict, and a mistrial was declared. A second trial was begun on February 6, 1967. At this trial, the jury found the defendant guilty of counts 1 and 3, but not guilty of count 2. Defendant’s motions for a new trial and probation were denied. Defendant was then committed to the California Youth Authority on count 1 for the term prescribed by law. Defendant appeals from the judgment (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 1737.5) and from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

The facts out of which this prosecution arose will only be

[450]

dealt with briefly as they are not crucial to the point urged on appeal. In the early morning hours of October 5, 1966, defendant entered the apartment where Mrs. Demeris Robertson lived with five of her children and a man named Christopher C. Armelin. Defendant took a paring knife from the kitchen and made his way upstairs to the room in which Mrs. Robertson and Mr. Armelin were sleeping. He forced Mr. Armelin into the bathroom, and told him to stay there. He then returned to the bedroom and had sexual intercourse with Mrs. Robertson against her will, holding the knife against her. Mrs. Robertson’s son, John Carter, was awakened and overheard some of what had happened. He then went for help, and returned with the police, who arrested the defendant.

Defendant’s sole contention on this appeal is that it was error to deny his request that the court appoint private counsel in lieu of the public defender.

People v. Taylor

AI Brief

STEPHENS, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief