Boyce, In re
Decision Date | 10 March 1959 |
Citation | 51 Cal.2d 699,336 P.2d 164 |
Court | California Supreme Court |
Parties | In re Charles Howard BOYCE on Habeas Corpus. Crim. 6368. |
Charles Bagby, San Francisco, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for petitioner.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., Clarence A. Linn, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Arlo E. Smith and Preble Stolz, Deputy Attys. Gen., for respondents.
In this proceeding the petitioner, Charles Howard Boyce, seeks a writ of habeas corpus while confined in the state prison at Soledad under a 1957 judgment of conviction of burglary. It is contended that, because he was denied the right of counsel at the time he was sentenced, his present confinement is illegal.
The attorney general, in behalf of Lawrence E. Wilson, superintendent of the prison at Soledad, has filed a return consisting in part of excerpts from the clerk's minutes in the criminal proceedings. People v. Charles Howard Boyce, No. 8186, Kern County Superior Court. It appears from the minutes that on the 20th day of November, 1957, the petitioner entered a plea of guilty while present in court with his counsel, and that on November 27, 1957, the petitioner, through his counsel, applied for probation. The application for probation was denied on December 18, 1957, and it further appears from the minutes of that day that the 'defendant was duly informed by the Court of the complaint filed against him (and) * * * of his arraignment and plea of guilty in Municipal Court under the provisions of section 859a of the Penal Code.
* * *'
The attorney general concedes in his return that the petitioner was not represented by counsel when sentenced.
It was held in the case of In re Roberts, 40 Cal.2d 745, 255 P.2d 782, that a defendant is entitled to counsel when judgment is pronounced and sentence imposed, and that a deprivation of that right is a violation of article I, section 13 of the Constitution. * In that case it appeared that the defendant had been represented by counsel at all prior stages of the proceedings, but that he was without counsel at the time the judgment and sentence were pronounced. The court stated at page 748 of 40 Cal.2d, at page 784 of 255 P.2d:
In the case of In re Levi, 39 Cal.2d 41, 244 P.2d 403, it appears that following revocation of probation the defendant was sentenced without the presence of counsel. The court held that judgment pronounced in the absence of counsel, as in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jenkins v. State
...the right to have counsel present at his sentence, and failure to inform him of that right invalidates the sentence. In re Boyce, 51 Cal.2d 699, 336 P.2d 164 (Sup.Ct.1959); In re Roberts, 40 Cal.2d 745, 255 P.2d 782 (Sup.Ct.1953); In re Levi, 39 Cal.2d 41, 244 P.2d 403 (Sup.Ct.1952); People......
-
Van Brunt, In re
...in person. (In re Martinez, 52 Cal.2d 808, 813, 345 P.2d 449; People v. Merkouris, 46 Cal.2d 540, 555, 297 P.2d 999; cf. In re Boyce, 51 Cal.2d 699, 336 P.2d 164; In re Levi, 39 Cal.2d 41, 244 P.2d 403.) The error was not merely procedural, but deprived the accused of his attorney's protect......
-
Smiley, In re
...to counsel, without a finding that the assistance of an attorney would actually have benefited the petitioner (see, e.g., In re Boyce (1959) 51 Cal.2d 699, 336 P.2d 164; In re James (1952) 38 Cal.2d 302, 240 P.2d 596; see also In re Jones (1948) 88 Cal.App.2d 167, 198 P.2d The court in Bell......
-
People v. Tiner
...sentencing stage was abridged, only the judgment, commitment or sentence would be invalidated, not the conviction. (See In re Boyce, 51 Cal.2d 699, 700--701, 336 P.2d 164 and cases there cited; People v. Banks, 53 Cal.2d 370, 390--391, 1 Cal.Rptr. 669. 348 P.2d 102; People v. Robinson, 184 ......