Beaty, In re

Decision Date08 June 1966
Docket NumberCr. 9767
Citation51 Cal.Rptr. 521,64 Cal.2d 760,414 P.2d 817
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties, 414 P.2d 817 In re Ronald Wayne BEATY on Habeas Corpus. In Bank

Ronald Wayne Beaty, in pro. per., and Andrew L. Tobia, Sacramento, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for petitioner.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., Doris H. Maier, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Raymond M. Momboisse, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

TRAYNOR, Chief Justice.

In this habeas corpus proceeding petitioner seeks his release from the state prison at Folsom on the ground that the assistance given him by appointed counsel was so inadequate as to deprive him of his constitutional right to counsel. (Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799.)

On August 4, 1964, petitioner was arraigned before the Municipal Court of the Anaheim-Fullerton Judicial District on a charge of robbery. He was informed of his legal rights and was given a copy of the complaint. The court appointed the public defender to represent him. On August 10, 1964, petitioner appeared with a deputy public defender, waived preliminary hearing, and entered a plea of guilty.

Petitioner appeared in the Superior Court of Orange County without counsel on August, 14, 1964, for proceedings on his certified plea of guilty. The court appointed another deputy public defender present in the courtroom to represent him. The court then found that the robbery was of the first degree and pursuant to petitioner's request for immediate sentencing ordered him confined to state prison for the term prescribed by law.

Subsequently petitioner sought a writ of Coram nobis in the Superior Court of Orange County to have the judgment set aside. The court appointed counsel to represent him and held evidentiary hearings on April 30, 1965, and May 5, 1965. The court found that there was no mistake on the part of petitioner in entering the plea of guilty that he could not have discovered through the exercise of dur diligence and therefore denied the petition. The evidence at the hearings prompted the court to comment, however, that petitioner was not adequately represented by counsel in the proceedings leading to his conviction for robbery and that his proper remedy was habeas corpus. It declined to treat the petition as one for habeas corpus on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction to grant such relief to a petitioner confined in Orange County only temporarily for the purpose of a Coram nobis proceeding.

Petitioner thereupon filed petitions for writs of habeas corpus in the Superior Court of Sacramento County and in the District Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District. Both petitions were denied.

The record of the hearings in the Coram nobis proceeding is before the court. Respondent has submitted an affidavit by the deputy public defender who represented petitioner at the August 10 hearing, setting forth additional facts that influenced him to believe that the guilty plea was in petitioner's best interests. The report of the investigator who interviewed petitioner for the public defender's office has also been submitted. The parties have stipulated that the record of the Coram nobis proceeding, the attorney's affidavit, and the investigator's report are a sufficient record for this court to determine whether petitioner was adequately represented by counsel.

Petitioner and a codefendant were arrested on August 2, 1964. Petitioner was interrogated by police officers at the Garden Grove police station, but refused to answer questions regarding the offense and was subsequently lodged in the Orange County jail. After he had been arraigned but before he met the deputy public defender assigned to represent him, petitioner signed a confession prepared for him by a Garden Grove police officer.

The preliminary hearing was scheduled for August 7, 1964. Petitioner did not meet his counsel until that date. On August 6, 1964, the public defender's investigator interviewed petitioner in the Orange County jail and obtained a statement of the facts surrounding the offense, the arrest, and the police interrogation. The investigator prepared a report of this interview for the deputy public defender who was to represent petitioner. The report stated that charges of kidnaping, violation of the Dangerous Weapons' Control Law, and a robbery in Long Beach, as well as a federal charge of possessing a sawed-off shotgun, were also pending against petitioner. The investigator reported that petitioner claimed that he had been physically abused at the Garden Grove police station when he refused to stand in the lineup and that he made his confession after the police told him that he would not be prosecuted for the robbery in Long Beach if he confessed the Orange County robbery. Petitioner testified at the Coram nobis hearings that he requested permission to see an attorney when he was at the Garden Grove police station and that the request was denied. There is no mention of such a request and denial in the investigator's report.

Petitioner's attorney had received the investigator's report before he interviewed petitioner on August 7th and had also discussed the case with the deputy district attorney assigned to prosecute petitioner. This discussion and the information provided by the investigator led the attorney to believe that the district attorney regarded petitioner as a dangerous criminal and that the aggravated nature of the offense and petitioner's conduct would result in a charge of kidnaping if the matter were not handled with dispatch. In the attorney's opinion petitioner's arrest and the search incidental thereto were legal and any rough treatment of petitioner was caused by his behavior at the Garden Grove police station.

The attorney's interview with petitioner took place in the holdover tank of the Anaheim-Fullerton Municipal Court. Petitioner his codefendant, and several other persons to be represented by the same attorney were among the many defendants held there awaiting courtroom appearances. Petitioner testified that the meeting was of approximately five minutes' duration. The attorney testified at...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • People v. Beagle
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • January 5, 1972
    ...Ibarra, supra, 60 Cal.2d 460, 469, 34 Cal.Rptr. 863, 386 P.2d 487) nor was any crucial defense withdrawn (In re Beaty (1966) 64 Cal.2d 760, 764--765, 51 Cal.Rptr. 521, 414 P.2d 817; People v. Mattson, supra, 51 Cal.2d 777, 790--791, 336 P.2d 937). Other contentions made by defendant are lik......
  • People v. Cortez
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 7, 1970
    ...S.Ct. 1441, 25 L.Ed.2d 763; In re Hawley, supra, 67 Cal.2d 824, 828--830, 63 Cal.Rptr. 831, 433 P.2d 919; In re Beaty (1966) 64 Cal.2d 760, 764--765, 51 Cal.Rptr. 521, 414 P.2d 817; In re Rose (1965) 62 Cal.2d 384, 389--390, 42 Cal.Rptr. 236, 398 P.2d 428; and People v. Connor (1969) 270 Ca......
  • People v. Pineda
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • August 11, 1967
    ...386 P.2d 487.) Where such aid is denied the question may be raised by a collateral attack on the conviction. (In re Beaty (1966) 64 Cal.2d 760, 761, 51 Cal.Rptr. 521, 414 P.2d 817; In re Rose (1965) 62 Cal.2d 384, 385, 42 Cal.Rptr. 236, 398 P.2d 428, and see People v. Kirchner (1965) 233 Ca......
  • People v. Perry
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • March 26, 1969
    ...(Citations.)' (Id. See also People v. Reeves (1966) 64 Cal.2d 766, 774, 51 Cal.Rptr. 691, 415 P.2d 35; In re Beaty (1966) 64 Cal.2d 760, 764, 51 Cal.Rptr. 521, 414 P.2d 817; People v. Brooks (1966) 64 Cal.2d 130, 139, 48 Cal.Rptr. 879, 410 P.2d 383; People v. Hughes (1961) 57 Cal.2d 89, 99,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT