People v. Williams

FOURT, J. This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction of the crime of violation of section 503, Vehicle Code.

In an information filed in Los Angeles County, the defendant was charged in counts I and II with burglary; in count III he was charged with the crime of violation of section 503, Vehicle Code, a felony, in that he did on September 22, 1958, in Los Angeles County, drive and take an automobile, then the property of William J. James, without the consent of, and with the intent to deprive the said owner; count IV charged the defendant with an escape from custody.

The public defender was appointed to represent the defendant, and on October 10, 1958, the defendant was arraigned in open court and the matter continued to October 17, 1958, for further proceedings. On October 17, 1958, the defendant, in open court with his counsel present, pleaded guilty to counts III and IV. A probation officer’s report was ordered and further proceedings and disposition of counts I and II were continued to November 7, 1958. On November 7, 1958, the defendant was in court with his counsel, and at such time his application for probation was denied, count IV was dismissed in the interests of justice, and the defendant was sentenced to the state prison. Counts I and II were then dismissed.

The appellant now asserts that the record discloses confusion as to just what the defendant did plead guilty to, and that count III of the information does not state facts sufficient to constitute a public offense.

We have read the record and we find no confusion therein as to the pleading of the defendant. The defendant was represented by a competent attorney at the arraignment on October 10, 1958, and there is nothing to indicate that he was not properly arraigned in accordance with the provisions of section 988 of the Penal Code, Official duty is pre[269]sumed to have been regularly performed under the circumstances (Code Civ. Proc., § 1963, subd. 15). On October 17, 1958, one week after the arraignment, the defendant, with his counsel present, pleaded guilty to counts III and IV. The defendant, as heretofore indicated, was represented by an attorney at all times, and no proof at all having been made to dispel the presumption of regularity, the defendant cannot now be heard to say for the first time that he did not understand that he was pleading guilty to a felony. Under the circumstances we must assume that he knew he was charged with committing a felony and that he pleaded guilty thereto in open court. (People v. Henderson, 121 Cal.App.2d 298, 299-300 [262 P.2d 871].)