People v. Emigh, Cr. 2975
| Decision Date | 09 October 1959 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 2975 |
| Citation | 174 Cal.App.2d 392,344 P.2d 851 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Howard I. EMIGH, Defendant and Appellant. |
Richard A. Case, Sacramento, for appellant.
The Attorney General, by Doris H. Maier and Robert K. Puglia, Deputy Attys. Gen., for respondent.
Howard I. Emigh was charged with three violations of section 476a of the Penal Code. Each count of the information charged a prior conviction of forgery. At the time of the arraignment the public defender was appointed to represent him. The public defender waived the arraignment, the reading of the information, and a statement of the defendant's rights. The defendant then entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity to Count III of the information and specifically entered a plea of guilty to Count III and admitted the prior conviction. Counts I and II of the information were then dismissed. Two psychiatrists were appointed to examine the defendant. The insanity hearing was set. The defendant waived a jury trial. The issue was submitted to the trial judge on the report filed by the psychiatrists. Defense counsel waived the right to cross-examine the doctors. Defendant was found to be sane, judgment was entered, and this appeal followed.
A plea of guilty is an admission of defendant's guilt and of every element of the crime charged. People v. Clarke, 168 Cal.App.2d 342, 335 P.2d 775. A judgment on a plea of guilty is not appealable on the merits. People v. Rose, 171 Cal.App.2d ----, 339 P.2d 954. The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding that appellant was sane is not challenged.
Appellant contends that he was not properly informed of his constitutional rights; that he was entitled to the aid of counsel at all stages of the proceedings, including the preliminary examination; and that he was not informed of the effect of a plea of guilty and a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.
Section 987 of the Penal Code requires that if the defendant appears for arraignment without counsel, he must be informed of his right to counsel before being arraigned and must be asked if he desires counsel. This procedure was followed. Section 988 of the Penal Code provides that the arraignment consists in reading the accusatory pleading to the defendant, delivering a true copy of the pleading to him, and asking whether or not he pleads guilty or not guilty. In the instant case the reading of the accusatory pleading was waived by counsel. Defense counsel stated that he waived the reading of the information. He stated that the defendant was aware of his rights and counsel asked the defendant, 'is that correct, sir?' The appellant replied, 'yes.'
The record shows that the following then occurred:
'The Court: Well, Mr. Emigh, are you aware of the contents of Count III; that is, a charge of violation of Section 476a of the Penal Code?
'The Defendant: Yes.
'The Court: Do you know the nature of that charge?
'The Defendant: Yes, sir.
'The Court: What is your plea to the count?
'The Defendant: Not guilty by reason of insanity.
'The Defendant: Yes, I plead guilty to that charge, and not guilty by reason of insanity.
'The Defendant: Yes, I do admit it.
'Mr. O' Brien: He admits the prior.
'The Court: You're guilty of the prior conviction?
'The Defendant: Yes, sir.'
It is apparent that the court followed the statutory procedure and that appellant was fully informed of his rights.
Appellant contends also that prejudicial error occurred because the court did not inform him specifically of his right to:
1. A speedy trial;
2. A public trial;
3. The right to counsel at all stages of the proceedings;
4. The right not to be placed in jeopardy;
5. The right to a jury trial;
6. The right against self-incrimination;
7. The right against unlawful searches and seizures;
8. The right of confrontation.
There is no merit in this contention. The record shows that appellant was informed of his right to counsel and that the public defender was appointed to defend him. The record also shows that he expressly and personally waived his right to a trial by jury. The other rights enumerated by appellant were rights that would be protected by counsel. There is no statutory provision which requires that the accused in a criminal case who is represented by counsel be informed as to all his rights. The requirements of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tahl, In re
...such examination cannot be deemed to have prejudiced the defendant's rights.' (Id. at p. 22, 161 P.2d at p. 930.) In People v. Emigh (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 392, 344 P.2d 851, a similar record appears. The defendant pleaded 'not guilty by reason of insanity,' a plea which admits commission of......
-
People v. Ruiz
...incumbent upon the court to explain the effect of a plea when a defendant is represented by counsel, as was defendant. (People v. Emigh, 174 Cal.App.2d 392, 344 P.2d 851; see also People v. Martinez, 154 Cal.App.2d 233, 236--237, 316 P.2d 14; People v. Langdon, 52 Cal.2d 425, 432, 431 P.2d ......
-
Strode v. Board of Medical Examiners of Cal.
...Alcoholic Beverage Control, 141 Cal.App.2d 807, 297 P.2d 762), nor would the belief that he was merely pleading guilty (People v. Emigh, 174 Cal.App.2d 392, 344 P.2d 851; People v. Cabral, 128 Cal.App.2d 693, 275 P.2d 927); and his present claim that the allegation he was 'addicted to the u......
-
People v. Jones
...and in failing so to do, he waived the alleged invalidity. People v. Gilliam, 39 Cal.2d 235, 241, 246 P.2d 31; People v. Emigh, supra, 174 Cal.App.2d at page 395, 344 P.2d 851.' Appellant's second point--that the information is not sufficient in form is wholly without merit. Count I of the ......