People v. Goudeau

• Decision Date: 28 May 1970
• Docket Number: Cr. 17555
• Citation: 8 Cal.App.3d 275,87 Cal.Rptr. 424
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Eral Oliver GOUDEAU, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 424

87 Cal.Rptr. 424

8 Cal.App.3d 275

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Eral Oliver GOUDEAU, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 17555.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4, California.

May 28, 1970.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing June 23, 1970.

Hearing Denied July 22, 1970.

James T. Starr, City Prosecutor, by Robert E. Levy, Deputy City Prosecutor, Long Beach, for plaintiff and respondent.

Miller, Vandegrift, Middleton, & Sackin, by Robert Hillison, Los Angeles, for defendant and appellant.

ALARCON, ^* Associate Justice Pro Tem.

Factual Background

In two separate cases in the Municipal Court of the Long Beach Judicial District of Los Angeles County appellant was found guilty of violating section 11721 of the Health and Safety Code, a misdemeanor. He appealed to the appellate department of the superior court which affirmed the judgments and certified the cases for transfer under rule 62, California Rules of Court.

Problem

The appellant contends that the denial of a court reporter at the trial of a misdemeanor case is (1) a denial of due process because of the inability of a convicted person to prepare an adequate record on appeal, (2) a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, and (3) contrary to California's statutory procedural due process.

Discussion

The question as to whether a defendant is entitled to a court reporter in a misdemeanor trial as a matter of right was ruled upon in Hidalgo v. Municipal Court (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 244, 277 P.2d 36. We granted certification in this matter in order to consider the present vitality of the rule of the Hidalgo case in light of the more recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court in Williams v. Oklahoma City (1969) 395 U.S. 458, 89 S.Ct. 1818, 23 L.Ed.2d 440 and Griffin v. Illinois (1956) 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891. We have concluded that the Williams and Griffin decisions are clearly distinguishable from the Hidalgo case and have no application to the problem before us.

In Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891, after their conviction for armed robbery, the defendants filed a request with the trial court that a stenographic transcript of trial proceedings be furnished to them without cost because they were indigents. The trial court denied the motion without a hearing. The Illinois Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed under the Illinois Post-Conviction Hearing Act on the ground that denial of a reporter's transcript because of poverty did not raise substantial state or federal constitutional questions.

Before the Supreme Court, counsel for the State of Illinois conceded 'THESE PETITIONERS NEEDED A TRANSCRIPT IN ORDer to get adequate appellate review of their alleged trial errors.' (Griffin v. Illinois, Supra, 351 U.S. 12, 16, 76 S.Ct. 585, 589.) The Supreme Court held that a state may not deny 'the poor an adequate appellate review accorded to all who have money enough to pay the costs in advance.' (Griffin, supra, at p. 18, 76 S.Ct. at p. 590.) The Supreme Court remanded the cause for further action so that the Illinois Supreme Court might have an opportunity to reconsider its denial of a transcript in view of the concession by Illinois that a transcript was necessary for adequate appellate review. (Griffin, supra, at p. 19, 76 S.Ct. 585.) In Griffin the United States Supreme Court was careful to point out that a state is not required to furnish a reporter's transcript of every criminal proceeding. 'We do not hold, however, that Illinois must purchase a stenographer's transcript in every case where a defendant cannot buy it. The Supreme Court may find other means of affording adequate and effective appellate review to indigent defendants. For example, it may be that bystanders' bills of exceptions or other methods of reporting trial proceedings could be used in some cases.' (Griffin, supra, at p. 20, 76 S.Ct. at p. 591.) The bystanders' bill of exceptions is a report of the trial proceedings "prepared from someone's memory in condensed and narrative form and certified to by the trial judge." (See Griffin, supra, p. 14, 76 S.Ct. p. 588, fn. 4.)

In Williams v. Oklahoma City, 395 U.S. 458, 89 S.Ct. 1818, the petitioner was convicted of drunken driving and sentenced to serve 90 days in jail and to a fine of $50. The trial proceedings were stenographically transcribed as required by Oklahoma law. The trial court and the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals refused to order a copy of the reporter's transcript at public expense 'although finding that petitioner was an indigent whose grounds of appeal were not without merit, and that neither petitioner nor his appointed counsel could make up a transcript of the trial proceedings from memory.' (Williams, supra, at p. 459, 89 S.Ct. at p. 1819.)

In line with Griffin the Supreme Court held that the action of the trial court and the Court of Criminal Appeals effectively denied the petitioner the right of appeal because of his poverty in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In deciding Williams the Supreme Court did not change the law set forth in Griffin. It merely extended the Griffin rule to misdemeanor appeals where the petitioner cannot make up a narrative summary of the trial proceedings from memory.

In California felony proceedings a court reporter must be present if requested by the defendant, the district attorney, or on order of the court. (Code Civ.Proc., § 269.) ¹ However, in misdemeanor proceedings a court reporter is not required unless ordered by the court. (See Code Civ.Proc., § 274c.) ² '(T)he presence of an official court reporter in a criminal proceeding in the municipal court is dependent upon the discretion of the judge thereof.' (Hidalgo v. Municipal Court, Supra, 129 Cal.App.2d 244, 246, 277 P.2d 36, 38.) The fact that the trial court in a misdemeanor proceeding may deny a defendant's request for the presence of a reporter at the trial does not in itself discriminate against the poor since the reporter's fee must be paid out of public funds. (See Gov.Code, § 69952; see also Hidalgo v. Municipal Court, Supra, at p. 246, 277 P.2d 36.) The wealth of the defendant is, therefore, not relevant to the presence of a reporter since a misdemeanor defendant is not required to pay for the reporter's fee.

California provides an alternative method to the use of a reporter's transcript as a means of affording a review of a misdemeanor trial through the use of a settled statement. (Cal.Rules of Court, rules 184, 187.) ³ 'Under these rules the appellant in a municipal court proceeding may prepare a statement setting forth the grounds of his appeal and so much of the evidence and other proceedings as are necessary for a decision upon the grounds so advanced.' (Hidalgo v. Municipal Court, Supra, at p. 248, 277 P.2d at p. 39.)

The settled statement procedure as provided by California law is strikingly comparable to the Illinois bystander bill of exceptions mentioned by the United States Supreme Court in Griffin as a possible alternative to a reporter's transcript as a means of affording appellate review. If the judge at a California misdemeanor trial refuses to order a court reporter the convicted defendant, whether rich or poor, may seek appellate review on the basis of a settled statement. 'When such a statement can afford an adequate basis for review no right of an appellant is infringed by denial of a full transcript.' (Muller v. Municipal Court (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 177, 179, 66 Cal.Rptr. 367, 368.) In the instant matter the appellant has failed to show any damage as the result of the refusal of the trial judge to order a reporter. The appellant does not even allege that the trial was too complex or protracted to permit the preparation of an adequate settled statement from memory or notes.

The appellant contends that a reporter's transcript is mandatory in every misdemeanor case so that the appellate court may order that a transcript be prepared if the appellant contends that he is unable to prepare an adequate settled statement. However, the appellant has not shown us wherein the 'Engrossed Statement on Appeal' filed herein is inadequate. He does not claim that the summary of the evidence is unfair, inaccurate or omits evidence vital to his appeal. In fact the appellant has failed to raise any contention in his briefs which, if true, would demonstrate a ground for reversal.

The fact that the California Legislature has made the presence of a reporter mandatory at a felony trial and discretionary in misdemeanor proceedings is not a denial of equal protection. The possible consequences of a felony prosecution are far more severe than for the conviction of a misdemeanor. Therefore, it is reasonable for the Legislature to provide additional safeguards in a felony prosecution to ensure that there is more than one method available to provide an adequate record of the trial.

The appellant also...