People v. Dotson

• Decision Date: 10 August 1956
• Docket Number: Cr. 5925
• Citation: 46 Cal.2d 891,299 P.2d 875
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Lawrence Gene DOTSON, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 875

299 P.2d 875

46 Cal.2d 891

PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Lawrence Gene DOTSON, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 5925.

Supreme Court of California, In Bank.

Aug. 10, 1956.

Lawrence Gene Dotson, in pro per., Donald D. Connors, Jr., San Francisco, under appointment by the Supreme Court, and J. Stewart Harrison, San Francisco, for appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Clarence A. Linn, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Arlo E. Smith, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

SHENK, Justice.

The defendant Lawrence Gene Dotson appeals from a judgment of conviction of violations of sections 187 (murder), 459 (burglary) and 211 (robbery) of the Penal Code, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.

The defendant and an accomplice were interrupted by Francisco Herrera while in the act of ransacking his home. At gun point, Herrera and his party of two other men and two women were herded into a bedroom, where the women were barricaded in a closet and the men were bound and gagged. The men were forced to empty their pockets and all members of the party were required to give up the valuables on their persons, after which the defendant and his companion left. Herrera, who had been bound and gagged with strips of bedding and further secured with a blanket tied over his head and the upper part of his body, strangled to death before the other members of the party could extricate themselves and summon aid.

On the first day of November, 1954, the defendant and his companion appeared for arraignment upon an indictment in the Superior Court in and for the City and County of San Francisco. It appears in the record of that proceeding that the defendant and his companion were represented by counsel from the public defender's office and that they were 'duly arraigned.' They did not enter a plea. When it was learned that they were minors proceedings were suspended and they were taken before the Juvenile Court for possible proceedings therein pursuant to section 833.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. Following a hearing in the Juvenile Court for which no transcript of the proceedings was made, the following order was entered on the 5th day of November: 'It appearing to the satisfaction of the Court that the above-named Gene Lawrence Dotson, a minor of the age of eighteen years, was on the 25th day of October, 1954, certified to the Juvenile Court by Department No. 12 of the Municipal Court of this City and County, and that criminal proceedings pending in said Municipal Court have been suspended against said minor by reason of his age;

'And it further appearing to the Court that the Grand Jury of this City and County has presented and filed in the Superior Court of this Court and County on October 29, 1954, an indictment charging said Gene Lawrence Dotson with the same offense upon which he has been certified herein;

'And it further appearing to the Court, after consideration of the report of the Probation Officer, the prior record of the monor, the minor's character, the type of his offense, his actual age, and other relevant factors, that the said minor is not a fit subject for consideration under the Juvenile Court Law 'It is hereby ordered that the said minor Gene Lawrence Dotson be remanded to the Superior Court in order that criminal proceedings be instituted against him under the General Law and the aforesaid Indictment.'

As indicated by the order it must be assumed that the Juvenile Court, in disposing of the matter, considered that the defendant although a minor in years had been conducting himself as an adult. It appears in the record that he was married, had been moving about the country from job to job, hsd enlisted and been discharged from the Marine Corps, had a prior record of criminal conviction and had served at least one jail sentence.

On the 10th day of November the interrupted proceedings in the Superior Court were resumed and the defendant, represented again by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the offenses charged in the indictment and the case was ser for trial. Continuances were granted on the 16th of November and on the 13th of December. Counsel for the defendant consented to the continuance in each instance. Trial was commenced on the 10th of January, 1955. At all stages of the trial the defendant was represented by counsel. On February 2 the defendant was found guilty in the first degree of each of the three counts. On appeal he assigns as error a claimed lack of representation by counsel in the Juvenile Court; that counsel was not provided until shortly before trial in the Superior Court, and that certain conduct on the part of the district attorney resulted in an unfair trial.

In an affidavit submitted by the defendant and referred to in his briefs the defendant states that he was without counsel in the Juvenile Court; that at that time he had no knowledge of the so-called felony murder doctrine; that he did not intend to harm the deceased; that he thought that he had as good an opportunity to defend in the Superior Court as in the Juvenile Court; that he therefore made no effort to have the matter retained in the Juvenile Court, and that he was thereby prejudiced by being subjected to the felony murder doctrine and the possibility of sentences of death or life imprisonment which would not be imposed in the Juvenile Court.

There can be no question but that a defendant is entitled to be represented by counsel at all stages of a criminal proceeding. § 858, Penal Code. But proceedings before the Juvenile Court, even in cases where a criminal charge is pending in the Superior Court, are not criminal in nuture. They are in the nature of guardianship proceedings in which the state as parens patriae seeks to relieve the minor of the stigma of a criminal conviction and to give him corrective care, supervision and training. In re Daedler, 194 Cal. 320, 228 P. 467; In re Dargo, 81 Cal.App.2d 205, 183 P.2d 282. While such minors are as much entitled to constitutional guarantees as when subjected to criminal proceedings, In re Poff, D.C., 135 F.Supp. 224; In re Contreras, 109 Cal.App.2d 787, 241 P.2d 631, nevertheless, because of the nature of the proceedings, the denial of those requirements which have been recognized as elements of a fair trial does not necessarily deprive one of due process of law in Juvenile Court proceedings. The fact that a minor is not represented by counsel need not be a denial of due process in the Juvenile Court. People ex rel. Weber v. Fifield, 136 Cal.App.2d 741, 289 P.2d 303; In re O'Day, 83 Cal.App.2d 339, 189 P.2d 525. It is only when by such lack of representation of the minor undue advantage is taken of him or he is otherwise accorded unfair treatment resulting in a deprivation of his rights that it can be said he has been denied due process of law. There is nothing in the present case to suggest such deprivation or unfair treatment.

In re Contreras, supra, 109 Cal.App.2d 787, 241 P.2d 631, is relied on by the defendant as holding that the absence of counsel in Juvenile Court proceedings is so grave an error as to justify release of the accused. The case does not stand for that broad proposition. It appeared in that case that the Juvenile Court considered improper and questionable evidence on which it declared the minor a ward of the court and committed him to the Youth Authority. It was pointed out by the court that the adjudication in that case thus deprived the minor of his liberty, confined him in a state institution and in the eyes of society was tantamount to a criminal conviction of acts which would have amounted to a felony in a proceeding under the general law. The court concluded that under the guise of acting to protect the minor the Juvenile Court had deprived him of constitutional guarantees which might have been preserved had he been represented by counsel. It ordered his release and quoting from In re Hill, 78 Cal.App. 23, 247 P. 591, 592, held that the "regular processes of the law provided to produce evidence, and the ordinary rules established to aid courts in testing and weighing it, are not scrapped because the proceeding" is one in the Juvenile Court. In re Contreras, supra, 109 Cal.App.2d at page 790, 241 P.2d at page 633; see also In re Poff, supra, 135 F.Supp. 224; In re Tahbel, 46 Cal.App. 755, 189 P. 804.

In the present case the Juvenile court made no attempt to determine the defendant's complicity in any wrongdoing or to punish him within the scope of its statutory power. It merely ascertained that the defendant was not a 'fit subject' for consideration in that court, and declined to exercise further jurisdiction over him. The determination of that question rested within the sound discretion of the juvenile judge. The law recognizes that a minor may have such a record of delinquency or his derelictions may be of such a character that to make him a ward of the Juvenile Court would not aid him or serve the purposes of the court. People v. Renteria, 60 Cal.App.2d 463, 141 P.2d 37; 15 Cal.Jur.2d 631. It appears from the order of the Juvenile Court that the judge exercised his discretion with such considerations in mind, and in doing so under the circumstances here shown the defendant was not deprived of any constitutional right. We are aware of no authority which would deem the proceedings in the Juvenile Court in this particular instance to have been a stage in the criminal proceedings or to have resulted in a denial of due process of law.

As to the claimed lack of adequate representation by counsel in the Superior Court the defendant states that about 4:30 p. m. on January 9, 1956, an attorney from the public defender's office advised him that he would represent him; that he talked with the attorney for approximately fifteen minutes at that time; that the felony murder doctrine was not mentioned, and that he did not talk with counsel again until the trial...