People v. Hughes

ELKINGTON, J. Defendant Hughes and one Danny Dunkley were charged with several crimes involving assaults upon a fellow prisoner in a jail cell. Hughes appeals from a judgment of conviction on all charges.

At their preliminary examination attorney Wilmont Sweeney was appointed by the magistrate to represent both defendants. Upon their later arraignment in the superior court the following proceedings took place:

“Me. Sweeney : If the Court please with reference to Mr. Dunkley. I was appointed by the court below to represent them and I don’t know whether this is a continued appointment or not. There were lower court proceedings.

“The Court: That is not true of Mr. Hughes?

“Mr. Sweeney: No, not of Mr. Hughes.

“The Court: Mr. Dunkley, you have no attorney here, is that correct ?

“Dependant Dunkley: No.

1 ‘ The Court : Do you have an attorney of your own ?

“Dependant Dunkley: No, I don’t.

“The Court : Do you have any money or property to pay for a lawyer ?

“Dependant Dunkley: Not at the present time, no.

“The Court: Are you working?

“Dependant Dunkley: No.

[798]“The Couet: I will appoint Mr. Sweeney to represent the Defendant Dunkley in these proceedings. Would you arraign the Defendants.”

Hughes urges as error the fact that “No inquiry was made by the court as to whether there was any conflict in the positions between these two co-defendants nor was appellant asked whether he consented to have his counsel also represent Dunkley. ’ ’ He argues that, as a matter of law, á duty rested upon the court to make such affirmative inquiry.

The mere fact that an attorney is appointed to .represent multiple defendants does not deprive any of the defendants of his right to counsel. (People v. Ingle, 53 Cal.2d 407, 416-417 [2 Cal.Rptr. 14, 348 P.2d 577]; People v. Jolke, 242 Cal.App.2d 132, 140 [51 Cal.Rptr. 171] ; People v. Odom, 236 Cal.App.2d 876, 878 [46 Cal.Rptr. 453].) This rule is supported by reason and experience. Very often, where no adverse interests exist, joint defendants on trial appear to.be better served by one attorney, than by two. Every trial judge has seen separate counsel, where the interests of two defendants are clearly compatible, adopt differing'' theories of defense and tactics which tend to prejudice the other defendant without any compensating advantage to his own client. For this reason and perhaps others, informed and pompetent multiple defendants, well able to afford individual counsel, often by choice agree to representation by the same attorney.