Mowrer v. Superior Court
Decision Date | 31 December 1969 |
Citation | 3 Cal.App.3d 223,83 Cal.Rptr. 125 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Glen MOWRER, Jr., Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent. Civ. 35444. |
Ball, Hunt, Hart & Brown, Beverly Hills, and Joseph A. Ball, Long Beach, and Cary A. Rosen, for petitioner.
John D. Maharg, County Counsel, Jean Louise Webster, and Lynard C. Hinojosa, Deputy's County Counsel, for respondent.
Petitioner, a deputy public defender of the County of Los Angeles, seeks a writ of certiorari to review an order of the respondent court holding him in contempt.
It is the practice of the public defender's office in the County of Los Angeles to attempt to assign a deputy public defender working in felony trials as many original trial settings as possible in a single department of the respondent court. However, this is not always possible, and often an individual deputy will have matters set in departments of the court other than the one in which he is generally engaged. In addition, under the 'overflow system' 1 in effect in the Central Criminal Division of respondent court, on the day fixed for trial of a particular case the matter may be transferred to another department of the court for trial if the department of original setting is trying another case or is for any reason unable to handle a particular case. The deputy public defender who tries a case is also expected to return to the department in which he tried the case for the probation and sentence hearing.
Between February and August 1969 petitioner was assigned trials originally set in approximately ten different departments of the Central Criminal Division of the respondent court. However, commencing in May 1969, most of his cases were set in Department 115 of the court.
On August 8, 1969, the following colloquy took place between petitioner and the judge presiding in Department 115:
On August 21, 1966, petitioner appeared in Department 115 at 9:00 a.m. in a case entitled People v. Lois Jones. The matter was trailed and continued to August 22, 1969, at 9:00 a.m. That same day petitioner also had appearances set in Departments 102, 105 and 111 of the respondent court. Petitioner testified at his contempt hearing that on August 21, 1969, he argued a motion for new trial in Department 111, then went to Department 105 at 1:30 p.m. for a probation and sentence hearing and requested that it go over to 2:30 that afternoon, and then proceeded to Department 102 where he had a pretrial 1538.5 (Penal Code, § 1538.5) motion to argue. When he called Department 105 at 3:00 p.m. he was advised that his matter had been continued to 9:00 a.m. of the following morning (August 22). Petitioner testified that he left Department 102 'a little after 5:00 o'clock.'
On August 22, 1969, petitioner arrived at his office prior to 9:00 a.m. He testified that he knew it was the practice of the presiding judge in Department 105 to take the bench promptly at 9:00 a.m. and that it was usually the practice of the judge presiding in Department 115 to take the bench between 9:20 a.m. and 9:45 a.m. Accordingly, petitioner informed Deputy Public Defender McGarry, who was also appearing in Department 115 that morning, that he had to appear in Department 105 briefly and that he expected to be present in Department 115 before the judge in that department took the bench, but that if he was late, it would be because he was detained in Department 105. The record indicates that when Mr. Mowrer's first matter (Ornelas) was called by the judge in Department 115 on the morning of August 22, Mr. McGarry responded, He did not advise the judge of Mr. Mowrer's whereabouts.
Petitioner testified he arrived in Department 105 shortly before 9:00 a.m. and attempted to call Department 115 but that he was unable to do so because the judge presiding in Department 105 took the bench before he had time to complete his call. Witnesses testified at the contempt hearing that the judge presiding in Department 105 on August 22 insisted that no telephone calls be made by attorneys in the courtroom while court was in session. At approximately 10:00 a.m. petitioner made a call to the Clerk of Department 115 and advised him that he was delayed in Department 105.
After petitioner concluded the probation and sentence hearing set in Department 105, he proceeded immediately to Department 115, where the following exchange took place between counsel and the court upon his arrival:
At his contempt hearing on August 27, 1969, petitioner testified that he had gone to Department 105 first because he believed that he could conclude his business in Department 105 before the judge in Department 115 took the bench and because he knew there would be at least two other deputy public defenders in Department 115 that morning to handle any 'unexpected business.'
On August 27, 1969, after an extensive contempt hearing which fully complied with the procedural requirements delineated in Arthur v. Superior Court, 62 Cal.2d 404, 42 Cal.Rptr. 441, 398 P.2d 777, for a so-called 'hybrid contempt' arising out of the alleged failure of an attorney, without valid excuse, to be present at the announced time for resumption of a criminal trial in which he was engaged, the petitioner was found in contempt by the respondent court. The order of the court was as follows:
Whether petitioner's acts constituted a contempt is jurisdictional, and in the absence of a recital of facts sufficient to constitute a contempt, the order adjudging the petitioner in contempt must be annulled. (In re Ciraolo, 70 Cal.2d 389, 74 Cal.Rptr. 865, 450 P.2d 241; Arthur v. Superior Court, 62 Cal.2d 404, 409, 42 Cal.Rptr. 441, 398 P.2d 777; Chula v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.2d 199, 203, 18 Cal.Rptr....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hawk v. Superior Court
...291, 301, 10 Cal.Rptr. 842, 359 P.2d 274; People v. Smith (1970) 13 Cal.App.3d 897, 907, 91 Cal.Rptr. 786; Mowrer v. Superior Court (1969) 3 Cal.App.3d 223, 230, 83 Cal.Rptr. 125), a court has Statutory authority to 'provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings before it, or its officers;......
-
People v. McKenzie
...of the court when they impede, embarass or obstruct it in the discharge of its duties [citations]." (Mowrer v. Superior Court (1969) 3 Cal.App.3d 223, 230, 83 Cal.Rptr. 125.) It has further been noted that the trial judge "has the responsibility for safeguarding both the rights of the accus......
-
Cottle v. Superior Court
...the proceedings of matters before it and to effect an orderly disposition of the issues presented."]; Mowrer v. Superior Court (1969) 3 Cal.App.3d 223, 230, 83 Cal.Rptr. 125 ["A court has inherent power to exercise reasonable control over all proceedings connected with the litigation before......
-
People v. Sapp
...defender, James had the authority to assign any of his deputies to represent defendant in this case (see Mowrer v. Superior Court (1969) 3 Cal.App.3d 223, 231, 83 Cal.Rptr. 125) and also to seek his own removal from the case (Code of Civ. Proc., § 284). James asked the trial court to allow ......
-
Other pretrial motions
...is improper for judges to be inflexible in consideration of a lawyer’s obligations in other courtrooms. See Mowrer v. Superior Court , 3 Cal.App.3d 223 (1969). §6:15.3 Discipline for Legal Error Alone In Oberholzer v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1999) 20 Cal.4th 371, the California ......