Ex parte Schneider, Cr. 5052

• Decision Date: 09 May 1950
• Docket Number: Cr. 5052
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: Ex parte SCHNEIDER.

Page 934

217 P.2d 934

35 Cal.2d 396

Ex parte SCHNEIDER.

Cr. 5052.

Supreme Court of California, in Bank.

May 9, 1950.

Leroy M. Schneider, in pro. per., and Van H. Pinney, San Francisco, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for petitioner.

Fred N. Howser, Attorney General, and Clarence A. Linn, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.

SHENK, Presiding Justice.

The petitioner, Leroy M. Schneider, seeks his release from Folsom prison on a Writ of Habeas Corpus. He is imprisoned for forgery and has been serving sentence since June 1947.

Upon the filing of the petition, prepared in propria persona, an order was issued requiring the respondent warden to show cause why the writ should not issue. At the request of the petitioner this court appointed counsel to represent him in this proceeding.

The principal allegations of his petition are, (1) that after his arrest money rightfully belonging to him was taken from him and that he was therefore unable to employ counsel of his own choice; (2) that he was forced to enter a plea of guilty; (3) that the services furnished to him by counsel for the state were inadequate; (4) that he was held 'incommunicado' in the county jail and was not permitted to subpoena witnesses; (5) that he was wrongfully permitted to waive his preliminary examination; (6) that he was denied due process of law.

Prior to the hearing on the order to show cause the attorney general filed a return consisting of an answer and five exhibits which include the transcript of the testimony at the preliminary examination; the transcript of the proceedings on arraignment in the superior court; the transcript of the proceedings when judgment was pronounced; and a copy of the judgment and commitment under which the petitioner is presently held. An examination of the record thus presented including the petition and two affidavits filed February 6, 1950, shows that there is no merit in the application.

At the time of his arrest the petitioner had no money on his person but his co-defendant Castro who was arrested at the same time had $802, the proceeds of the forgeries, in his possession. The forgeries described in the five counts of the complaint and information were alleged to have occurred on the 14th day of April, 1947. The two men were arrested at the place where the last forged check was cashed. The money was used for the purpose of making restitution.

Shortly after his arrest the petitioner admitted his participation in the crime. These admissions were free from any legal duress or compulsion. Thereafter a complaint was filed in the municipal court, the petitioner was duly arraigned, and a preliminary examination was held at which he was represented by a deputy city public defender. At the hearing all of the elements of the offenses were established. When the petitioner appeared in the superior court for arraignment he stated to the court that he had no money to employ an attorney and the court then properly ordered that he be represented by the public defender of the county. The arraignment took place on May 8th and the time to plead was continued to May 15th. Confronted with the evidence taken before the committing magistrate the petitioner entered a plea of guilty and admitted a prior conviction burglary in Alameda county in 1938 for which he had served a term in state's prison. There is no showing whatsoever that he was forced to plead guilty.

Notwithstanding his prior conviction the petitioner was permitted to file an application for probation. Upon consideration of the report of the probation officer the petitioner's counsel stressed the fact that...