People v. Maddox

BARNARD, P. J. The defendant was charged with incest with his daughter and, in a second count, with committing a lewd and lascivious act upon the same daughter, who was then under 14 years of age. The court appointed an attorney to represent him, and he later pleaded not guilty as to both counts. Subsequently, the court granted his request to withdraw his pleas of not guilty. He then pleaded guilty to the second count, the first count was dismissed on motion of the district attorney, and he applied for probation. Pursuant to section 288.1 of the Penal Code, a doctor was appointed to examine the defendant and report to the court. A hearing was later held in which the doctor’s report and the report of the probation officer were considered. On October 13, 1950, probation was denied and judgment was pronounced sentencing the defendant to state prison. No appeal was taken from the judgment.

On August 26, 1954, the defendant in propria persona filed in the trial court a petition for a writ of error coram nolis asserting, among other things, that at the time he pleaded guilty his ability to reason and understand the nature of the case was that of an imbecile. A different attorney was then appointed by the court to represent the defendant and a hearing was had, at which evidence was presented. The petition was denied and the defendant has appealed from that order.

Appellant’s sole contention is that there was an error in fact made by the trial court in believing that the appellant was mentally capable of understanding the nature of the proceedings under which he pleaded guilty, and that there are “bits of evidence” which, when taken together, proved that he was at that time mentally incapable of understanding the nature of the proceedings. The appellant relies on four matters which appear in the record. (1) After he had withdrawn his plea of not guilty and when asked ' ‘ How do you plead to the second count of the information; namely, Lewd and Lascivious Conduct?” the defendant replied “I plead guilty, I suppose.” He was then told to confer with his counsel, after which he replied “I plead guilty.” (2) When arraigned for judgment on October 13, 1950, the court asked the defendant whether he had any legal cause to show why he should not now be sentenced. His attorney replied “He does not, Your Honor.” The court then asked the defendant to speak for himself and the defendant replied “None, I reckon.” The court then asked if he under[85]stood the question and the defendant replied “None, I reckon, no legal cause.” (3) The report of the doctor appointed to examine the defendant, which report was dated October 9, 1950, contains this sentence: “His intelligence and mentality are, according to my examination and various tests, definitely dull and below the borderline of dull normal, even when one considers his complete lack of training.” (4) A doctor, who testified at the hearing on the petition for writ of error coram nobis, interpreted the report filed by the other doctor as meaning that the defendant was a moron who might not understand the nature of the charges and if it were explained to him might not remember it.