In Re Tedford

California Supreme Court Apr 23, 1948 No. Crim. 4784Published

Before: Edmonds

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the petitioner competently waived his right to counsel and that his prior out-of-state convictions were sufficient to support his habitual criminal status. Consequently, the petitioner's claims of due process violations were rejected.

Issues

Whether the petitioner was denied his right to counsel during the preliminary hearing and superior court proceedings.
Whether the petitioner competently waived his right to counsel.
Whether the petitioner's prior Oklahoma convictions constitute a valid basis for an habitual criminal adjudication in California.

Disposition. remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In the absence of such a motion, any invalidity in the proceedings prior to the commitment is deemed waived.”

“The transcript of the proceedings upon arraignment and the entry of the plea of guilty show that, although not verbose, the petitioner was responsive and fully aware of the nature of the proceedings.”

EDMONDS, J.

Robert Tedford is endeavoring to obtain his release from imprisonment as an habitual criminal upon the general grounds that, at the time of his plea of guilty to the charge of assault with a deadly weapon and sentence thereon, he was denied due process and the equal protection of the laws. More specifically, by the allegations of his petition, upon which this court issued a writ of habeas corpus, he asserts that he was held to answer without sufficient or probable cause; that he was “wrongfully permitted to waive his preliminary examination without benefit of counsel”; that he was deprived of his right to have legal assistance; that he was denied the right to be tried by a jury; that he was physically’ and mentally unable to comprehend the nature of the proceedings; that no crime was ever proved; and that, as to his prior convictions, they are not a sufficient basis for the judgment that he is an habitual criminal.

In the brief, filed by counsel appointed to represent Ted-ford, it is contended that petitioner was illegally convicted because he was denied the right to counsel. It is argued that the “record of the preliminary hearing shows that the defendant was not represented by counsel and it further fails to show that he was advised as to his right to counsel at all stages of the proceedings, nor does it show that he was informed that he was entitled to a reasonable continuance to obtain counsel or to summon and subpoena witness.” As to the hearing in the superior court, it is contended that Tedford was not represented by counsel and that “an illiterate person suffering from a serious malady,” as was Tedford, cannot be said to have intelligently waived his right to counsel. All of the other contentions of the petitioner presumably have been abandoned.

The docket of the justice’s court includes the statement that petitioner was “informed of his legal rights.” But if the justice of the peace failed to instruct the petitioner to that effect, the omission to do so affects only the legality of the commitment by the magistrate. No motion was made to set aside the information and, in the absence of such a motion, any invalidity in the proceedings prior to the commitment is deemed waived. (Pen. Code, §§ 995, 996;

People

[695]

In Re Tedford

AI Brief

EDMONDS, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief