People v. Loeber

• Decision Date: 26 March 1958
• Docket Number: Cr. 1329
• Citation: 323 P.2d 136,158 Cal.App.2d 730
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Paul C. LOEBER, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 136

323 P.2d 136

158 Cal.App.2d 730

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Paul C. LOEBER, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 1329.

District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, California.

March 26, 1958.

Rehearing Denied April 25, 1958.

Hearing Denied May 21, 1958.

Paul C. Loeber in pro per.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Albert Bianchi, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

MUSSELL, Justice.

In a complaint filed in the Municipal Court in the San Diego Judicial District appellant was charged with three separate counts of issuing checks without sufficient funds in violation of Section 476a of the Penal Code. He appeared in said court in person and through his attorney and entered a plea of guilty of the offense charged in the complaint. He was then certified to the Superior Court of San Diego County for further proceedings and, upon his arraignment in said Superior Court, he again personally and through his then attorney entered a plea of guilty to the three counts in the complaint. Probation was denied and appellant was ordered committed to the state prison, the sentence to run 'consecutively with relation to counts Nos. 1 and 3, and concurrently with relation to count No. 2.'

Appellant states in his notice of appeal that he 'appeals from the sentence imposed in and from the judgment of conviction in this action.' His first contention is that a deputy district attorney 'made a 'deal' to drop a charge of grand theft and two counts of NSF checks in exchange for a plea of guilty from the appellant to one count of NSF checks, and further District Attorney (deputy) lead the appellant to believe that he was pleading guilty to a charge carrying a lessor penalty.' In support of this contention appellant attaches to his opening brief a letter written to him on September 11, 1957, by a deputy district attorney, and also refers to conversations allegedly had between appellant, his counsel and the deputy district attorney. The letter does not indicate that a 'deal' as described by appellant was made. The appellant was advised therein that the District Attorney's office had dismissed a grand theft charge in consideration of appellant's plea of guilty to the three counts charged in the complaint; that the deputy district attorney had talked with appellant's attorney, who stated to him that the District Attorney's office had never agreed to dismiss any of the check charges against appellant. No motion for a new trial was made by appellant and no affidavits or other evidence was presented to the trial court to sustain his contention. In People v. Croft, 134 Cal.App.2d 800, 804, 286 P.2d 479, it was held that no facts outside the record and no affidavits which were not before the trial court can be considered on appeal, and that statements in briefs are not part of the record on appeal. In People v. Gilbert, 25 Cal.2d 422, 442, 154 P.2d 657, 667, it is said:

'The state will not, through its courts, pronounce judgment on a plea which has been procured by fraud or duress or by any force which operates to preclude the exercise of free will and judgment by the party. Neither will it permit a scheming criminal to trifle with its processes. He may gamble only at his own risk on the result of a plea of guilty when that plea is entered through the exercise of his judgment unvitiated by fraud, duress, or similar motivating influence. If he claims such overreaching he must bear the burden of proof.'

Appellant has failed to bear the burden of proving a 'deal' as claimed.

Appellant next claims that he was detained by the police for a period of thirty-eight hours and was refused legal counsel during that time and that this constituted coercion, fraud, duress and deception. This claim is unsupported by the record and, as is said in People v. Henderson, 121 Cal.App.2d 298, 300, 262 P.2d 871, 872, 'Merely because a prisoner fills his brief with narratives about which the court below knew nothing, a record on appeal is not thereby made. Briefs are not the basis of an appeal. They discuss the record contained in the reporter's transcript and in the minutes of the clerk.' It is also said in 121 Cal.App.2d on page 300, 262 P.2d at page 872:

'There is nothing a reviewing court can do about talk outside of a court proceeding int he absence of an appropriate record thereof by affidavit or otherwise. If we were obliged on every appeal to try the merits of conversations participated in by litigants outside the presence of the court there would be no end of most appeals. Our only concern is with what was said to the court or in its presence when actually investigating the facts of a controversy or with what is said by an accused person in making his plea of guilty or by his own or opposing counsel and the remarks of the court, if any.'

Appellant next argues that 'judgments were pronounced without pleas by appellant who stood mute while the public defendant entered pleas of guilty which were illegal and prejudicial to appellant.' This contention is without merit. The transcript of the proceedings in the Superior Court on June 6, 1957, contains the following questions and answers:

'The Court: People against Paul C. Loeber.

'Mr. Mills: Ready, your Honor.

'The Clerk: Your true name is Paul C. Loeber?

'The Defendant: Yes.

'The Clerk: You are represented by Mr. Mansfield A. Mills?

'The Defendant: That is correct.

'The Clerk: Mr. Loeber, you have heretofore on May 31, 1957, in Municipal Court Number 3, entered a plea of guilty to three counts of issuing checks without sufficient funds. What is your plea at this time?

'The Defendant: Guilty.

'The Clerk: As to all three counts?

'The Defendant: Yes, sir.

'Mr. Mills: We would like to make an application for probation at this time, your Honor. * * *'

This transcript was certified by the official court reporter as a true and correct transcript of the proceedings held at the time.

The next contention is that the attorney appointed as counsel for appellant was inexperienced in the practice of criminal law and 'did not satisfy appellant's constitutional guarantee.' This contention is likewise not supported by the record for it appears therefrom that appellant, in both the Municipal and Superior courts, personally and by his attorney entered a plea of guilty to the three counts charged in the complaint. There is no showing that the attorney appointed by the Superior Court failed to properly represent appellant.

Appellant further contends that the only charge which could properly have been made against him was the crime of grand theft and that even if the proper charge was made, it would have included only one count, as he deposited all of the checks on one deposit slip. However, we are not here concerned with...