People v. Caruso

• Decision Date: 21 October 1959
• Docket Number: 6254,Cr. 6253
• Citation: 345 P.2d 282,174 Cal.App.2d 624
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Henry J. CARUSO, Kenneth G. Barnett, George Sheehan, James Cauthen, C. R. Buckner, Ladimir Macura, Sidney S. Schraier, Harold Andrews, Joseph E. Guccione, James L. Broadway and Robert Roberts, Defendants. Sidney S. Schraier, C. R. Buckner, Henry J. Caruso, Ladimir Macura, James Cauthen and Harold Andrews, Defendants and Appellants. PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent. v. Henry J. CARUSO et al., Defendants. Sidney Schraier, Carl R. Buckner, Henry J. Caruso and Robert Stratford, Defendants and Appellants.

Page 282

345 P.2d 282

174 Cal.App.2d 624

PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Henry J. CARUSO, Kenneth G. Barnett, George Sheehan, James Cauthen, C. R. Buckner, Ladimir Macura, Sidney S. Schraier, Harold Andrews, Joseph E. Guccione, James L. Broadway and Robert Roberts, Defendants.

Sidney S. Schraier, C. R. Buckner, Henry J. Caruso, Ladimir Macura, James Cauthen and Harold Andrews, Defendants and Appellants.

PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent. v. Henry J. CARUSO et al., Defendants.

Sidney Schraier, Carl R. Buckner, Henry J. Caruso and Robert Stratford, Defendants and Appellants.

Cr. 6253, 6254.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

Oct. 21, 1959.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 17, 1959.

Hearing Denied Dec. 17, 1959.

Roger J. Pryor, Pauline Day Bakst, Compton, for appellant Sidney S. schraier.

Robert E. Ford, Hollywood, Blase A. Bonpane, Los Angeles, Robert Maslow, Beverly Hills. for appellant Henry J. Caruso.

Jack B. Tenney, Los Angeles, for appellant Ladimir Macura.

Gordon B. Friesen, Los Angeles, for appellant James Cauthen.

Taylor, Sherman & Heller, Los Angeles, for appellant Harold Andrews.

Cannon & Callister, David H. Cannon, Reed E. Callister, Los Angeles, for appellant Robert Stratford.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth Miller, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

HERNDON, Justice.

These are appeals from judgments of conviction on pleas of guilty entered by the appellants on October 1, 1957. At various times thereafter the appellant Henry J. Caruso, Sidney Schraier, Harold Andrews, Robert Stratford, Ladimir Macura and James Cauthen, moved to withdraw their pleas of guilty and substitute therefor pleas of not guilty. Appellants here contend that the trial court abused its discretion in denying their respective motions.

The appellants also purport to appeal from the orders denying the motions to change the plea, from the orders granting probation, and in one instance, [Andrews] from the sentence. An order denying a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty and substitute a plea of not guilty is not appealable (People v. Francis, 42 Cal.2d 335, 336, 267 P.2d 8; People v. Singh, 156 Cal.App.2d 363, 365, 319 P.2d 697); and no appeal lies from the sentence. People v. Gallardo, 41 Cal.2d 57, 60, 257 P.2d 29; People v. Yates, 165 Cal.App.2d 489, 332 P.2d 314. By the express terms of Penal Code, section 1237 an order granting probation is deemed to be a final judgment for purposes of appeal. However, only appellant Stratford raises any objection to the terms of probation. Hence, with this one noted exception, we need not here discuss the propriety of the orders granting probation. On these appeals from the judgments of conviction we may review the orders denying the motions to withdraw the pleas of guilty (People v. Alexander, 130 Cal.App.2d 529, 532, 279 P.2d 128; People v. Murphy, 62 Cal.App. 709, 710, 217 P. 810; see 4 Cal.Jur.2d 402, § 543).

Until 1957 appellant Henry J. Caruso was a successful automobile dealer in Southern California. He was the prime mover in establishing several retail automobile sales organizations which used his name extensively in their advertising programs. The other appellants were employees in the Caruso sales organizations. On April 25, 1957, in an indictment comprising nineteen counts returned by the Grand Jury of Los Angeles County, appellants Henry J. Caruso, Cauthen, Macura, Schraier, Andrews, and six other defendants were charged with one count of criminal conspiracy to cheat and defraud (Pen.Code, § 182, subd. 4). Caruso was also charged with various of the other defendants with eight counts of forgery (Pen.Code, § 470) and ten counts of grand theft (Pen.Code, § 487, subd. 1). All defendants under this indictment were arraigned on May 6, 1957, and on June 10, 1957, each defendant moved to have the indictment set aside pursuant to Penal Code, section 995. The motions were granted as to certain defendants and particular counts, and the indictment was dismissed as to one defendant. Appellant Caruso's motion was denied as to all nineteen counts, and on June 21, 1957, each defendant pleaded not guilty to each count in which he was charged and trial was set for October 1, 1957.

Meanwhile, on June 5, 1957, the grand jury again indicted appellants Henry J. Caruso, Stratford, and sixteen other defendants on fifteen counts of grand theft. On June 19, 1957, the defendants under this second indictment were arraigned. On July 10, 1957, each of the defendants moved to set aside the indictment, and hearing on the motions was continued to October 1, 1957.

The record reveals that on August 30, 1957, appellant Caruso was represented by attorneys Blase Bonpane and Cecil Collins. Andrews was represented by attorney Ward Sullivan. Cauthen was represented by attorney Gordon B. Friesen. Macura and Schraier were represented by attorney Jack B. Tenney. [Stratford's affidavit does not indicate by whom he was represented on that date, but he had not yet been required to plead to the June 5, 1957, indictment.] On August 30, 1957, on appellant Caruso's motion, attorney Fred N. Howser was associated as Caruso's counsel, and on defendants' motion the trial was continued to October 21, 1957.

On October 1, 1957, the date previously set for hearing on the motions to dismiss the June 5 indictment, Caruso appeared in the trial court with attorney Collins. The other appellants were present and on motion of all the defendants the hearing of the motions to dismiss the indictment was advanced to October 1st. The motions to dismiss under Penal Code, section 995 were withdrawn and the six appellants herein pleaded guilty to certain of the counts with which they were charged.

Caruso withdrew his prior plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty to two counts (forgery and grand theft) of the April 25 indictment and two counts (grand theft and forgery) of the June 5 indictment. Stratford pleaded guilty to one count of the June 5 indictment (grand theft). Each of the other appellants pleaded guilty to one of the counts with which he was charged: Cauthen (grand theft), Schraier (grand theft), Macura (forgery), and Andrews (grand theft).

A number of the indicted defendants (other than appellants) elected to stand trial on their pleas of not guilty, stipulating that their causes might be submitted on the transcript of the grand jury proceedings, but reserving the right to offer additional evidence. The trial of these defendants was continued to October 21, 1957. On that date trial was commenced and proceeded intermittently from October 21st to November 18th.

On November 15, 1957, appellant Schraier moved to withdraw his plea of not guilty and on November 18th, his motion was denied. The trial of the defendants who had pleaded not guilty was proceeding apace, and on November 20, 1957, certain of the defendants under the two indictments were found not guilty on certain of the counts with which they were charged. During the course of the trial of the defendants who had pleaded not guilty, the trial judge commented regarding the apparent unreliability of certain witnesses for the prosecution and the consequent weakness of the case as against certain of the defendants. These comments need not be here repeated, nor need they be further discussed other than to point out that they had absolutely nothing to do with the charges to which appellants had pleaded guilty and had no reference to any of the complaining witnesses involved therein. They related only to the cases which were then on trial before the judge.

On December 6, 1957, Caruso filed a notice of motion for change of plea which was denied on December 16, 1957. On January 8, 1958, Caruso filed a second notice of motion for change of plea. On January 16, 1958, Schraier's second motion to withdraw his plea was denied. On January 17, 1958, Stratford filed notice of motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. On January 22, 1958, the other appellants, Cauthen, Andrews and Macura also moved to withdraw their pleas of guilty. Finally, on January 23, 1958, all the then pending motions to withdraw the pleas were denied, and judgments of conviction were entered as to the six appellants on the charges to which they had pleaded guilty on October 1, 1957.

Caruso was given a suspended sentence. Probation was granted for a period of ten years conditioned on his spending the first year in the county jail, paying a fine of $10,000 and remaining 'out of the automobile business or any business involving sales to the public.' The other appellants were also granted probation on similar conditions. Stratford was granted probation for five years conditioned on his spending the first six months in the county jail, paying a fine of $1,000, and that he 'get out and stay out of the automobile business.'

'The plea of guilty constitutes an admission of every element entering into the offense charged, and constitutes a conclusive admission of defendant's guilt.' People v. Outcault, 90 Cal.App.2d 25, 29, 202 P.2d 602, 604; People v. Burkett, 118 Cal.App.2d 204, 207, 257 P.2d 745. A plea of guilty is an act charged with the most serious legal consequences; it is tantamount to a judgment of conviction. People v. Jones, 52 Cal.2d 636, 343 P.2d 577; People v. Hickman, 204 Cal. 470, 476, 268 P. 909, 270 P. 1117; see 14 Cal.Jur.2d 493, § 247. However, the law seeks no unfair advantage over the defendant (People v. Schwarz, 201 Cal. 309, 315, 257 P. 71; People v. Miller, 114 Cal. 10, 16, 45 P. 986) and although the code specifies that the withdrawal of a plea of guilty may be permitted before judgment (Pen.Code, § 1018) the court has the power to permit such withdrawal and the substitution of a not guilty plea after judgment has been pronounced. People v. Campos, 3 Cal.2d 15, 43 P.2d 274; see 14 Cal.Jur.2d 508, § 259.

Although in a few states statutes confer an absolute right on the defendant to withdraw a plea of guilty...