People v. Douglas
Decision Date | 29 December 1960 |
Docket Number | Cr. 7040 |
Citation | 10 Cal.Rptr. 188,187 Cal.App.2d 802 |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. William DOUGLAS and Bennie Will Meyes, Defendants and Appellants. |
Bennie Will Meyes and William Douglas, in pro. per.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., and Jack E. Goertzen, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
On sufficient evidence a jury convicted defendants Douglas and Meyes of ten counts of robbery (counts 1-6, 8-10, 13), one count of assault with intent to commit murder (count 7), and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon (counts 11, 12).The jury also found that defendnat Meyes had been convicted of burglary in 1948, robbery in 1950 and in 1951, and had served terms of imprisonment therefor.Defendants appeal from the judgments and from orders denying their months for new trials.
Defendants contend it was essential they be indicted by a grand jury and that it was error to proceed by information.The point has no merit.Prosecution of criminal cases by information is an alternative remedy.Due process of law does not require an indictment by a grand jury as defendants assert.People v. Thwaits, 101 Cal.App.2d 674, 677, 226 P.2d 58.
At the time defendants were arraigned on August 18, 1959, the public defender was appointed their counsel.When the cause was called for trial before Judge Rhone on September 30, 1959, defendants, represented by Deputy Public DefenderNorman R. Atkins, filed an affidavit of prejudice and made an oral peremptory challenge under section 170.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.The challenge was denied.Mr. Atkins made a motion for a continuance.The motion was denied.On behalf of defendant Douglas, he then requested the court to appoint separate counsel for Douglas.The request was denied.During impanelment of the jury, both defendants in open court dismissed Mr. Atkins as their counsel and requested the court for time in which to obtain private counsel.The request was denied.Defendants then determined to defend themselves without the assistance of counsel.
It is asserted the court erred in denying a continuance.On August 21, 1959 the trial was set for September 30, 1959.It was on the latter date that the court denied a continuance.The assertion is based on the contention that Mr. Atkins was not prepared to go to trial.While Mr. Atkins stated he would like more time in which to prepare, he said, 'On my own part I feel that I am prepared,' and 'I have prepared this case so that I could defend it now.'Mr. Atkins also said, 'as this trial progresses, I feel I would be able to do that [further prepare] as I go along, and it may not be to Mr. Meyes' satisfaction or Mr. Douglas' satisfaction, but I would be able to do that and do it properly.'
'No continuance of a criminal trial shall be granted except upon affirmative proof in open court, upon reasonable notice, that the ends of justice require a continuance.'Pen.Code, § 1050.The granting of a continuance normally rests in the discretion of the trial court.People v. Buckowski, 37 Cal.2d 629, 631, 233 P.2d 912.The action of the trial court will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion.People v. Markos, 146 Cal.App.2d 82, 86, 303 P.2d 363.No abuse of discretion appears.
Defendants contend it was error not to appoint other counsel for them at the time they dismissed Mr. Atkins on the day of trial.So far as the record shows, defendnats had no ground for dismissing Mr. Atkins.The dismissal was unqualified.
'Defendant Meyes: I can't use him under any circumstances.I'm letting you know, Mr. Atkinson, I don't want you to represent me.
'Mr. Atkins: Well, that seems unqualified enough, your Honor.
'Defendant Meyes: I don't want you to represent me.I stated that as clearly as I know how.I do not want you for my counsel.I don't want you under any circumstances.
'The Court: All right.You now state the same thing, do you, Mr. Douglas?
'Mr. Douglas: I do.
A defendant's right to counsel does not include the right to postpone the trial of a case indefinitely and reject the services of the public defender while defendnat, at his leisure, attempts to find counsel.People v. Adamson, 34 Cal.2d 320, 332-333, 210 P.2d 13.As in Adamson34 Cal.2d at page 333, 210 P.2d at page 19), 'This court can take judicial notice, too, that it would be difficult to find in California any lawyers more experienced or better qualified in defendant criminal cases that [sic]the public defender of Los Angeles County and his staff.'
People v. Simeone, 132 Cal.App.2d 593, at page 597, 282 P.2d 971, at page 973, says:
Where a person accused of crime refuses to be represented by the Public Defender of Los Angeles County, and demands that some practicing lawyer leave his private practice in order to defend such accused, the latter prefers to have cause for a grouch rather than a chance to defeat his accusers.Because there are thousands of lawyers in Los Angeles County who would gladly suffer much inconvienience rather than see the constitutional right of an accused violated, is no reason why a defendant should be privileged to dawdle with the trial court, to neglect for four weeks to obtain counsel, and then have his conviction reversed because he did not choose to be represented by the public defender.'
And in People v. Williams, 174 Cal.App.2d 364, at page 378, 354 P.2d 47, at page 56:
'We perceive no grounds, legal or otherwise, why an accused should be permitted to refuse the services of the public defender, waive his right to counsel unless one of his choice is appointed, and then have his conviction reversed because he did not choose to be represented by the legal aid provided by the county.'
Again, in People v. Duncan, 175 Cal.App.2d 372, at page 382, 346 P.2d 521, at page 528:
'Defendant's right to represent himself no more includes the right to reject the services of the public defender and postpone indefinitely the trial, allowing him to at his leisure attempt to find counsel who will serve without charge, than does defendant's right to counsel.'
And, as said in People v. Howard, 135 Cal.App.2d 95, at page 98, 286 P.2d 454, at page 456:
No good reason was given by the defendant for terminating the services of his counsel, who was present and ready to act at all stages after the arraignment, and no prejudicial error appears.'
The court did not err in not appointing counsel for defendants at the time they dismissed the public defender on the day of trial.As the People suggest, the record clearly shows defendants were attempting improperly to delay the proceedings by a last-minute dismissal of the public defender.
It is urged the court deprived defendants of an opportunity to present alibi defenses.Defendants did not cross-examine any of the People's witnesses.When the People rested, the trial judge said to defendants: Defendant Meyes stated he was not qualified to defend himself, and said, 'I would like to ask again that the Court stop this illegal procedure and grant us the opportunity to have counsel to represent us.'The judge stated a recess would be taken and After the recess, with the jurors in the box, the judge stated: Defendant Douglas replied: The judge stated: 'Mr Meyes, do you have any witnesses you desire to call?'Defendant Meyes replied: 'Your Honor, we cannot put on any defense without a lawyer, without counsel.'The judge said: 'Well, the defendants not having presented any evidence, they resisting presenting any evidence, I assume then that the defendants rest.'After further discussions between defendants and the court in which defendants asked the court to reconsider giving them lawyers and sufficient time to obtain an attorney, the court stated: ...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Andrew B., In re
...The Court of Appeal found "no prejudicial error in not appointing counsel for defendants on the appeal" (People v. Douglas (1960) 187 Cal.App.2d 802, 812, 10 Cal.Rptr. 188), noting the presiding justice had " 'gone through the reporter's transcript' " and concluded, " 'It is apparent to me ......
-
People of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent v. Conser Lee Shaw, Defendant and Appellant, Cr. 4703
...and shall run consecutive thereto.'' (150 Cal.App.2d at p. 821, 311 P.2d at p. 148; and to the same effect see: People v. Douglas (1960) 187 Cal.App.2d 802, 811, 10 Cal.Rptr. 188; and People v. Tucker (1954) 127 Cal.App.2d 436, 437, 273 P.2d These precedents suggest that section 1070 should......
-
People v. Wells
...preceding Douglas v. People of State of California. (See People v. Hyde (1958) 51 Cal.2d 152, 154, 331 P.2d 42; People v. Douglas (1960) 187 Cal.App.2d 802, 812, 10 Cal.Rptr. 188; People v. Logan (1955) 137 Cal.App.2d 331, 332--333, 290 P.2d 11.) Wells, however, does not claim that he was i......
-
People v. Saunders
...(1945) 70 Cal.App.2d 128, 131, 160 P.2d 587; People v. Collins (1953) 117 Cal.App.2d 175, 183, 255 P.2d 59; People v. Douglas (1960) 187 Cal.App.2d 802, 808, 10 Cal.Rptr. 188; People v. Hoerler (1962) 208 Cal.App.2d 402, 408-409, 25 Cal.Rptr. 209; People v. Hickok (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 57, ......