Ex parte Adams, Cr. 3524
Decision Date | 14 May 1958 |
Docket Number | Cr. 3524 |
Citation | 160 Cal.App.2d 454,325 P.2d 107 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | In re AL ADAMS on Habeas Corpus. |
Edward T. Mancuso, Public Defender, City & County of San Francisco, San Francisco, for petitioner.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Clarence A. Linn, Asst. Atty. Gen., Arlo E. Smith, Deputy Atty. Gen., Thomas C. Lynch, Dist. Atty., San Francisco, for respondent.
Petitioner Al Adams, presently held in the County Jail of the City and County of San Francisco, seeks a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner was sentenced for violations of Vehicle Code, sections 502 and 483, and Municipal Police Code, section 152. The public defender was appointed to represent the petitioner. At the trial on November 8, 1957, the public defender, not the petitioner, entered a plea of not guilty, waived a jury trial and submitted the case on the police report. Petitioner alleges that his constitutional right was violated as he did not personally waive a jury trial, nor could he properly have done so because of his alcoholic condition at the time of the trial. The People do not dispute the allegations of the petitioner, but state only that the petitioner is imprisoned pursuant to a valid judgment.
A violation of a defendant's constitutional right during the trial is ground for an attack on the judgment by habeas corpus. In re Wallace, 24 Cal.2d 933, 152 P.2d 1.
Article I, section 7 of the state Constitution, provides in part: 'The right of trial by jury shall be secured * * * and remain inviolate; * * * A trial by jury may be waived in all criminal cases, by the consent of both parties, expressed in open court by the defendant and his counsel.' As we said recently in People v. Pechar, 130 Cal.App.2d 616, at page 617, 279 P.2d 570, where the identical point was raised on appeal, the above constitutional provision 'has been construed repeatedly to require an express as distinguished from an implied consent to the waiver by the defendant personally, as well as by his counsel. (Citing cases.) The right to trial by jury in a criminal case is a sacred one and accordingly the method of waiver provided in the constitution must be strictly followed. For this reason The Pechar case has recently been followed in People v. Benjamin, 1956, 140 Cal.App.2d 703, 295 P.2d 477; People v. Barnum, 1957, 147 Cal.App.2d 803, 809, 305 P.2d 986, on facts somewhat less compelling than those in the instant case.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hughes v. Heinze
...the defendant personally express in open court that he consents to a waiver of a trial by jury.\'" In the case of In re Adams, 1958, 160 Cal.App.2d 454, 325 P.2d 107, 108, the California court, in considering this question "At the trial on November 8, 1957, the public defender, not the peti......
-
People v. Kranhouse
...requires an affirmative showing of an Express, as distinguished from Implied, waiver by the defendant in open court. (In re Adams, 160 Cal.App.2d 454, 455, 325 P.2d 107; Witkin, Crim.Proc., § 334, p. 327.) Notwithstanding the efficacy of the foregoing principles, no stereotyped language exp......
-
People v. Walker
...an express, as distinguished from an implied, consent to the waiver by defendant personally as well as by his counsel (In re Adams, 160 Cal.App.2d 454, 325 P.2d 107; People v. Pechar, 130 Cal.App.2d 616, 279 P.2d 570; People v. Benjamin, 140 Cal.App.2d 703, 295 P.2d 477; People v. Barnum, 1......
-
People v. Guaracha
...proceedings and any portion of the judgment predicated thereon are subject to attack by writ of habeas corpus. (In re Adams (1958) 160 Cal.App.2d 454, 455--456 (325 P.2d 107).) 'Defendant's attack is solely directed against that portion of the judgment which finds that he has suffered two p......