People v. McGee, Cr. 31645
| Decision Date | 26 June 1978 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 31645 |
| Citation | 146 Cal.Rptr. 833,82 Cal.App.3d 127 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Dale McGEE, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Paul Halvonik, State Public Defender, Charles M. Sevilla, Chief Asst. State Public Defender, Kent L. Richland, Adrian K. Panton, Deputy State Public Defenders, for defendant and appellant.
Evelle J. Younger, State Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
A one count information charged defendant with a violation of section 12021 of the Penal Code. The County Public Defender was appointed to represent defendant who pleaded not guilty. A motion under section 1538.5 was eventually denied. After the denial the previously entered plea was withdrawn and defendant pleaded guilty to the offenses charged. Eventually defendant was placed on probation. He appealed. At his request for counsel on appeal we appointed the State Public Defender.
On January 9, 1978 the State Public Defender filed a brief in which he analyzed the facts as they appeared at the 1538.5 hearing. There the prosecutor's case was that a vehicle in which defendant had been driving was properly stopped for an equipment violation and that when defendant appeared to reach toward his waistband, one of the officers felt that defendant was reaching for a weapon which was soon discovered. The defense version was that defendant had not been driving the car and that he and the driver were simply the victims of a roust. The trial court resolved whatever conflicts there were in favor of the People.
Appointed counsel filed a declaration in which he described his search for other arguable issues and, having discovered none, requested that he be relieved and that his client be given an opportunity to file a brief of his own under the principles of Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 and People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447, 62 Cal.Rptr. 419, 432 P.2d 21. That has been done, although defendant has not availed himself of the opportunity to file a brief.
We might point out that appellate counsel who eschews manufacturing issues where none exists achieves a real benefit for his client. Here, in order to comply with the mandate of Anders-Feggans we carefully considered the record before advising defendant that he could file his own brief and before filing this opinion dismissing the case. In doing so...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kayla G., In re
...who raises one or two frivolous issues, easily disposed of by the inspection of a few pages of transcript." (People v. McGee (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 127, 129, 146 Cal.Rptr. 833, italics added.) And, of course, 21 years before Wende, the California Supreme Court admonished appellate courts to e......
-
Andrew B., In re
...who raises one or two frivolous issues, easily disposed of by the inspection of a few pages of transcript." (People v. McGee (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 127, 129, 146 Cal.Rptr. 833.) The Wende Decision The ink was hardly dry on McGee when appointed counsel in a criminal appeal pending in Division ......
-
People v. Placencia
...Feggans required the court itself to review the entire record, not merely that portion discussed by counsel. (People v. McGee (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 127, 129, 146 Cal.Rptr. 833.) In Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, 158 Cal.Rptr. 839, 600 P.2d 1071, the Supreme Court adopted the McGee approach, co......
-
People v. Wende
...of such an interpretation, and it is contrary to all prior authority cited or found on the question. (See, e. g., People v. McGee (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 127, 146 Cal.Rptr. 833; People v. Woodard (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 930, 109 Cal.Rptr. 495; People v. Sumner (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 409, 69 Cal.Rp......