People v. Martin
| Decision Date | 01 October 1964 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 4690 |
| Citation | 230 Cal.App.2d 62,40 Cal.Rptr. 700 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Felix Samuel MARTIN, Defendant and Appellant. |
Harvey N. Black, Jr. San Francisco (under appointment of the District Court of Appeal), for appellant.
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., Edward P. O'Brien, John F. Kraetzer, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, for respondent.
Defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of robbery (Pen.Code, § 211), was sentenced to prison, and appealed in propria persona. Notice of appeal was filed late, but investigation revealed it had been presented to prison authorities in time. Relief was granted (Calif. Rules of Court, Rule 31(a)), and counsel on appeal was appointed. The Attorney General moved to dismiss the appeal as frivolous, a motion which we entertain when guilt has been established by plea (People v. Wallace, 217 Cal.App.2d 440, 31 8cal.Rptr. 697). Upon such a motion, appointed counsel is requested to consult defendant to ascertain whether he questions the accuracy of the transcript, whether he asserts that he was not represented by counsel or did not personally enter the plea, and the nature of any errors claimed by him.
Neither appointed counsel nor defendant denies that the latter personally entered the plea of guilty, but we felt that study of the record and the authorities was required, and therefore ordered the motion submitted for decision.
A guilty plea 'must be put in by the defendant himself in open court' (Pen.Code, § 1018). Earlier cases literally applied this rule to require specific plea by a defendant, without inquiring as to whether he had adopted the plea by words spoken in open court (In re Breen [1958], 162 Cal.App.2d 235, 328 P.2d 465; In re Brain [1924], 70 Cal.App. 334, 233 P. 390). In 1959, however, the Supreme Court pointed out that the purpose of the statute is to assure that the plea is the defendant's own, and that this end is served if the defendant 'authorized or adopted counsel's statement of his plea' (In re Martinez, 52 Cal.2d 808, 815, 345 P.2d 449, 453).
In our case, the reporter's transcript shows that counsel, rather than defendant, entered the plea of guilty to the first count. Defendant then personally answered the court's question as to whether he was armed. A week later, defendant and his attorney appeared in open court. The following occurred:
The District Attorney accept the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moss, In re
...guilty to count I. In most cases, a defendant may enter a plea of guilty without any particular incantation. (People v. Martin (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 62, 64, 40 Cal.Rptr. 700; People v. Niendorf (1961) 197 Cal.App.2d 594, 599, 17 Cal.Rptr. 467.) "A defendant's expression of guilt, in order t......
-
Moss, In re
...plea of guilty. 7 In most cases, a defendant may enter a plea of guilty without any particular incantation. (People v. Martin (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 62, 64, 40 Cal.Rptr. 700; People v. Niendorf (1961) 197 Cal.App.2d 594, 599, 17 Cal.Rptr. 467.) "A defendant's expression of guilt, in order to......
-
BEEBE MED. CENTER v. INSIGHT HEALTH SERVS.
... ... , an arbitrator's business relationships may be diverse indeed, involving more or less remote commercial connections with great numbers of people. He cannot be expected to provide the parties with his complete and unexpurgated business biography. But it is enough for present purposes to hold, ... ...
-
People v. Sumner
...v. Ward, 66 Cal.2d 571, 575, 58 Cal.Rptr. 313, 426 P.2d 881; Stephens v. Toomey, 51 Cal.2d 864, 338 P.2d 182.) Yet in People v. Martin, 230 Cal.App.2d 62, 40 Cal.Rptr. 700, division three of the first district followed its own precedent of People v. Wallace, 217 Cal.App.2d 440, 31 Cal.Rptr.......