Ex parte James
| Decision Date | 22 January 1952 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 5243 |
| Citation | 38 Cal.2d 302,240 P.2d 596 |
| Parties | Ex parte JAMES. |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
Adams & Reynolds, San Francisco, for petitioner.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Clarence A. Linn, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Petitioner, O. D. James, an inmate of San Quentin State Prison, seeks a writ of habeas corpus. He pleaded guilty to a charge of murder. The court determined that the crime was first degree murder and sentenced petitioner to imprisonment for life. Petitioner now contends that his constitutional rights were violated and his plea of guilty vitiated because he was not given the aid of counsel.
Petitioner's version of the events leading to the homicide are set forth in his affidavit. On December 2, 1944, a number of farm workers were engaged in a dice game at the canteen on the ranch where they worked. Petitioner and Charlie Thomas, the decedent, were watching the game awaiting their turns with the dice. Petitioner placed 55 cents in front of him on the table in anticipation of hazarding that sum when he gained possession of the dice. Thomas, who had not previously wagered any money and had no claim to the coins, suddenly snatched them. Petitioner demanded that Thomas return the money. They argued for about a minute and Thomas then ran out a side door. At this point a bell rang summoning the workers to supper. With the triple purpose of avoiding the rush for the front door, responding to the supper bell, and looking for Thomas, petitioner walked out the side door previously used by Thomas. Thomas was waiting outside, and petitioner again demanded his 55 cents. Thomas thereupon struck petitioner on the head with a beer bottle, stunning him and inflicting a bloody scalp wound. Petitioner staggered back and reached down to pick up his cap. As he did so he heard a shout 'Look out' and saw that Thomas was bearing down upon him with a knife. In the struggle that followed, petitioner's hand was slashed and is now marked by a large scar. He seized the knife and struck Thomas in the neck, killing him. After his wounds were attended to, petitioner retired to his quarters to await the arrival of law enforcement officers.
It is unnecessary to decide whether this version of the homicide is true. It is set forth simply to show that petitioner had a defense, which, if wholly or partially believed by the trier of fact on a plea of not guilty, would lead to acquittal or at most to a conviction of a lesser crime than first degree murder.
Petitioner appeared without counsel at the preliminary hearing on December 12, 1944 in the Justice's Court and was not informed of his right to counsel. 1 Bill Watson a worker on the ranch, testified that Thomas and petitioner had been at the dice table, that Thomas picked up some money from the table, and that Thomas and petitioner had an argument over some money and 'something about point eight.' As to what happened thereafter, he testified as follows:
* * *
* * *
* * *
' * * *
Felix Neal, another worker at the ranch, testified that he had been shooting the dice, that he made his point, which was eight, that he did not know anything about a side bet, that the argument started when Thomas grabbed some money from the table and that the argument continued for about five minutes. As to what happened thereafter, he testified as follows:
.
* * *
'
Albert H. Lopez, constable of the township testified that petitioner said that he had made a side bet with Thomas on the fall of the dice and that the argument was over the question whether Thomas had bet with or against the dice. Lopez further stated that immediately after the homicide, petitioner told him what happened, giving substantially the same version as that set forth in petitioner's affidavit. No other witnesses testified, and petitioner did not testify in his own behalf.
At the arraignment in the Superior Court, on December 15th, the court asked petitioner if he would like to have a lawyer and petitioner replied that he would like to have one. 2 Petitioner then pleaded not guilty. The court continued the matter one week for the appointment of an attorney.
Four days later Melvin K. Gibbs, Assistant District Attorney, and petitioner, again without counsel, appeared in the Superior Court. Nothing was said by Gibbs or the court about the order of continuance to December 22nd, and no order was entered advancing the case on the calendar. Gibbs told the court that petitioner had sent a note asking to see him and stating that he wanted to plead guilty. The trial court asked petitioner if he wished to plead guilty and he replied that he did. The court then permitted him to withdraw his plea of not guilty and to plead guilty. Gibbs then stated: Gibbs then asked petitioner Petitioner replied 'That is right,' The trial court accepted Gibbs' claim that the degree of the crime was first degree murder, and the case was continued for determination of the sentence.
On ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Collins
...relies are not contrary to the views just expressed. People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 463, 11 Cal.Rptr. 361, 359 P.2d 913; In re James, 38 Cal.2d 302, 313, 240 P.2d 596; People v. Chesser, 29 Cal.2d 815, 821, 178 P.2d 761, and Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 465, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461......
-
Tahl, In re
...accused desires to proceed without counsel. (E.g., In re Johnson (1965) 62 Cal.2d 325, 42 Cal.Rptr. 228, 398 P.2d 420; In re James (1952) 38 Cal.2d 302, 240 P.2d 546; People v. Chesser (1947) 29 Cal.2d 815, 178 P.2d 761.) Our holding today may thus be seen as an extention of the concepts fi......
-
People v. Pineda
...(People v. Ibarra, 60 Cal.2d 460, 464--466, 34 Cal.Rptr. 863, 386 P.2d 487)--in which case the writ is available (In re James, 38 Cal.2d 302, 309--310, 240 P.2d 596)--or Kellett v. Superior Court, 63 Cal.2d 822, 48 Cal.Rptr. 366, 409 P.2d 206, decided much later, so drastically changed the ......
-
Barber v. Municipal Court
...This right is a "fundamental constitutional right, which has been carefully guarded by the courts of this state." (In re James, (1952) 38 Cal.2d 302, 310, 240 P.2d 596, 600; People v. Douglas, (1964) 61 Cal.2d 430, 434, 38 Cal.Rptr. 884, 392 P.2d 964; People v. Carter, (1967) 66 Cal.2d 666,......