People v. Cruz
Citation | 12 Cal.3d 562,526 P.2d 250,116 Cal.Rptr. 242 |
Decision Date | 20 September 1974 |
Docket Number | Cr. 17561 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court (California) |
Parties | , 526 P.2d 250 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Joseph David CRUZ, Defendant and Appellant. In Bank |
William H. Waysman, Los Angeles, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for defendant and appellant.
Stanley E. Remelmeyer, City Atty., Roger P. Freeman and Owen D. Petersen, Deputy City Attys., for plaintiff and respondent.
Joseph P. Busch, Dist. Atty., Los Angeles, Harry B. Sondheim and Donald J. Kaplan, Deputy Dist. Attys., as amici curiae on behalf of plaintiff and respondent.
Defendant appeals from a municipal court judgment entered following his plea of guilty to misdemeanor possession of marijuana. (Former Health & Saf.Code, § 11530; Pen.Code, § 17, subd. (b)(4).) We affirm the judgment.
Because defendant was not represented by counsel when entering his plea, the court advised him of--and found he knowingly and intelligently waived--his constitutional right to counsel and the constitutional rights relinquished by the guilty plea; the privilege against self-incrimination and the rights of confrontation and jury trial. (See Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274; In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122, 81 Cal.Rptr. 577, 460 P.2d 449; Mills v. Municipal Court (1973) 10 Cal.3d 288, 110 Cal.Rptr. 329, 515 P.2d 273.) Appearing with counsel for disposition a month later, defendant moved to withdraw the plea, alleging in conclusory terms--but not proving--that he 'had been confused and had not intelligently intended to relinquish his rights' when entering the plea. 1 The motion was denied.
The appellate department of the superior court certified the case to the Court of Appeal, 2 and this court granted hearing to settle the following important question of law: Is a defendant who validly waives counsel and pleads guilty required to show 'good cause' in support of a prejudgment motion to withdraw the plea?
When defendant moved to withdraw his plea, section 1018 of the Penal Code provided in relevant part: 'On application of the defendant at any time before judgment the court may, and in case of a defendant who appeared without counsel at the time of the plea the court must, for good cause shown, permit the plea of guilty to be withdrawn and a plea of not guilty substituted.' 3 Defendant contends that the mandate to permit withdrawal 'in the case of a defendant who appeared without counsel at the time of the plea' is not qualified by the condition 'for good cause shown,' but stands absolute. 4
Generally, a qualifying phrase applies to the word, phrase or clause immediately preceding it, unless context or evident meaning require a different construction. (People v. Baker (1968) 69 Cal.2d 44, 46, 69 Cal.Rptr. 595, 442 P.2d 675; Elbert, Ltd. v. Gross (1953) 41 Cal.2d 322, 326--327, 260 P.2d 35; Hopkins v. Anderson (1933) 218 Cal. 62, 65, 21 P.2d 560.) The general rule governs this case. A motion to withdraw a guilty plea must be supported by a showing of good cause, whether the defendant was represented by counsel when entering the plea or waived his right to representation. The distinction drawn between the two classes is this: The requisite showing of good cause having been made, the court Must grant a withdrawal motion made by a defendant who entered his plea without counsel, whereas the court May grant a withdrawal motion made by a defendant who entered his plea with counsel. (People v. Shaver (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 213, 48 Cal.Rptr. 572.) 5 The proviso that '(this section) shall be liberally construed to effect these objects and to promote justice' does not license either enlargement or restriction of its evident meaning. (See Baxter v. Shanley-Furness Co. (1924) 193 Cal. 558, 560, 226 P. 391; Richardson v. City of San Diego (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 648, 651, 14 Cal.Rptr. 494.)
Mistake, ignorance or any other factor overcoming the exercise of free judgment is good cause for withdrawal of a guilty plea. (People v. Barteau (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 483, 486, 89 Cal.Rptr. 139; People v. Brotherton (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 195, 200--201, 48 Cal.Rptr. 513, and cases cited therein.) But good cause must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. (People v. Fratianno (1970) 6 Cal.App.3d 211, 221--222, 85 Cal.Rptr. 755; People v. Brotherton, Supra; see also, In re Dennis M. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 444, 457, fn. 10, 75 Cal.Rptr. 1, 450 P.2d 296.)
Not only did defendant fail to present clear and convincing evidence that he was 'confused' when entering his plea, but he also failed to even specify the nature of his alleged confusion. 6
The judgment is affirmed.
1 A settled statement constitutes the record on appeal. Although he does object to another paragraph, defendant does not object to the accuracy of the paragraphs of the settled statement summarized in the text.
Nor does defendant contend the requirement of an explicit 'on the record' waiver of the constitutional rights relinquished by a guilty plea, as applied to misdemeanor prosecutions in Mills v. Municipal Court, Supra, 10 Cal.3d 288, 110 Cal.Rptr. 329, 515 P.2d 273, is unsatisfied here. Moreover, reliance by defendant on Mills is precluded by the fact that he entered his plea prior to the purely prospective decision in that case.
3 In 1973, the phrase 'for good cause shown' was changed to 'for A good cause shown' (Stats.1973, ch. 719, § 11, p. ---; italics added), an amendment without apparent substantive significance.
4 At this court's request, supplementary briefs were filed on the threshold question whether the withdrawal provisions of section 1018 apply to misdemeanor prosecutions.
Other provisions of the section are concerned only with felony prosecutions. (Stats.1973, ch. 719, § 11, p. ---.)
However, section 1018 begins by providing that 'every' plea must be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Wharton
......801, 511 P.2d 1153, quoting, in part, People v. Francis (1954) 42 Cal.2d 335, 338, 267 P.2d 8.) It is the defendant's burden to produce evidence of good cause by clear and convincing evidence. (People v. Cruz (1974) 12 Cal.3d 562, 566-567, 116 Cal.Rptr. 242, 526 P.2d 250.) . Defendant relies on the declaration of Dr. Stephens in urging us to conclude the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion. This evidence, however, was substantially the same as that presented in ......
-
People v. Foley
...... (See White v. County of Sacramento (1982) 31 Cal.3d 676, 680, 183 Cal.Rptr. 520, 646 P.2d 191; People v. Corey (1978) 21 Cal.3d 738, 742, 147 Cal.Rptr. 639, 581 P.2d 644; People v. Cruz (1974) 12 Cal.3d 562, 566, 116 Cal.Rptr. 242, 526 P.2d 250.) . Although, as we have seen, sections 286 and 288a include conduct by force and conduct based upon age differential within the same subdivision of each statute, since 1980, when section 667.6 was first effective, forcible ......
-
People v. Fairbank
...... The court found defendant had not met his burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he entered his plea unknowingly. (People v. Wharton (1991) 53 . Page 802 . [947 P.2d 1339] Cal.3d 522, 585, 280 Cal.Rptr. 631, 809 P.2d 290; People v. Cruz (1974) 12 Cal.3d 562, 566, 116 Cal.Rptr. 242, 526 P.2d 250.) . A decision to deny a motion to withdraw a guilty plea " 'rests in the sound discretion of the trial court' " and is final unless the defendant can show a clear abuse of that discretion. (In re Brown (1973) 9 Cal.3d ......
-
Walsh v. Board of Administration
...... (Riley v. Johnson (1933) 219 Cal. 513, 520-521, 27 P.2d 760; People v. Pacheco (1865) 27 Cal. 175, 210-221.) In this respect our law is consistent with federal law and the law of nearly every state in the Union. ...Cruz (1974) 12 Cal.3d 562, 566, 116 Cal.Rptr. 242, 526 P.2d 250.) Under this rule the word "during" would appear to apply only to those members of the ......
-
Arraignment and pretrial matters
...for withdrawal of a guilty plea [cites omitted],” but good cause must be shown by “clear and convincing evidence.” People v. Cruz (1974) 12 Cal.3d 562, 566. The defendant must also show prejudice in that he or she would not have accepted the plea bargain had it not been for the mistake. Hil......
-
Table of cases
...v. Crudgington, supra , 88 Cal.App.3d 295, §8:30 People v. Crusilla (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 141, §§3:44.5, 7:20.36 People v. Cruz (1974) 12 Cal.3d 562, 566, §3:82 People v. Cruz (2008) 44 Cal.App.4th 636, §9:05 People v. Cuccia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 785, §§5:63.4, 9:106.1 People v. Cuellar (2......