People v. Clements
| Decision Date | 10 April 1962 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 4049 |
| Citation | 20 Cal.Rptr. 766,202 Cal.App.2d 284 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Donard Anthony CLEMENTS, Defendant and Appellant. |
William F. Delucchi, San Carlos, for appellant (Under appointment of District Court of Appeal).
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., John S. McInerny, Robert B. Smith, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, for respondent.
On this appeal from an order revoking probation (Pen.Code, § 1237, subd. 3), defendant, D. A. Clements, contends (1) he was denied due process of law at the time of his conviction because he was convicted on the basis of the transcript of the preliminary hearing; (2) he was denied due process of law at the time of his conviction because in his confused mental state, he could not properly waive his right to be convicted on evidence establishing his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt or his right to seasonably appeal; (3) that he was denied his right to present evidence in mitigation of punishment at the hearing on the motion for revocation of probation; and (4) that the trial court erred to his prejudice, by considering at the hearing on the motion for revocation of probation the evaluation report, prepared by the California Medical Facility. There is no merit in any of these contentions.
The record reveals the following: on April 28, 1960, appellant was charged by information with grand theft in violation of section 487 of the Penal Code. At his arraignment on May 9, the appellant was represented by counsel and waived advice and reading of the information. On May 16, appellant entered a plea of not guilty. A jury trial was ordered for June 20, 1960. On that date, the appellant was in the hospital and the trial taken off calendar and time for re-setting continued to August 15, at the appellant's request. Thereafter, on August 15, 1960, in the presence of the appellant, his counsel moved to withdraw the request for a jury trial and to submit the case on the preliminary transcript. This motion was granted after the defendant personally waived a jury trial and waived time. The court found the defendant guilty as charged, and on September 12, 1960, suspended sentence, and granted probation for one year on condition that the appellant take psychiatric treatment.
On February 9, 1961, the People instituted a proceeding to revoke probation. Appellant admitted the allegations in the three paragraphs of the affidavit for revocation. On February 20, appellant's counsel moved for a psychiatric evaluation and a ninety day observation period. This motion was granted and appellant ordered to the California Medical Facility at Vacaville for a period not exceeding ninety days. After a hearing on May 22, probation was revoked and appellant sentenced to the state prison with psychiatric treatment recommended. The notice of appeal was timely filed on May 29, 1961, in pro per.
The first two contentions on appeal relate entirely to appellant's judgment of conviction of grand theft, entered on September 12, 1960, wherein the sentence was suspended and probation granted. No timely appeal from that judgment was filed. As the time for such an appeal has long since expired, we will dispose of these contentions summarily. Appellant was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings. He now contends that he was erroneously convicted on the sole basis of evidence contained in the transcript of the preliminary hearing and that, because of his mental condition, he was unable to understand the trial proceedings or his right of appeal. It is well settled that by stipulation, a defendant may consent to trial on the preliminary transcript, and that such a stipulation is sufficient if made by counsel in the presence of the defendant (People v. Dessauer, 38 Cal.2d 547, 241 P.2d 238). Appellant erroneously contends that by such a stipulation, he waived the standard of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ross v. Superior Court
...that the trial court applied the proper burden of proof in matters tried to the court. (See, e. g., People v. Clements (1962) 202 Cal.App.2d 284, 286, 20 Cal.Rptr. 766; People v. Stroud (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 670, 678-679, 78 Cal.Rptr. 270.) 10 In the typical criminal case in which a jury tr......
-
Bunnell v. Superior Court
...or concedes the probability of conviction based on that evidence, in no way affects the People's burden. (People v. Clements (1962) 202 Cal.App.2d 284, 286, 20 Cal.Rptr. 766.) Similarly, a defendant convicted of a criminal offense has a statutory right to appeal from the judgment unless the......
-
People v. Arbuckle
...43 Cal.App.3d 766, 775, 119 Cal.Rptr. 522; People v. Walker (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 562, 568, 72 Cal.Rptr. 224; People v. Clements (1962) 202 Cal.App.2d 284, 287, 20 Cal.Rptr. 766.) There is no statutory support for the asserted right to confront and cross-examine as witnesses those who prepa......
-
People v. Label
...The point not having been properly raised in the trial court cannot be considered on appeal. (People v. Clements (1952)202 Cal.App.2d 284, 287, 20 Cal.Rptr. 766; People v. Walker (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 562, 567--568, 72 Cal.Rptr. 224.) Again, because of the claim of inadequate representation......