People v. Shanklin
Decision Date | 22 June 1966 |
Docket Number | Cr. 249 |
Citation | 52 Cal.Rptr. 28,243 Cal.App.2d 94 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Walter SHANKLIN, Defendant and Appellant. |
James B. Thompson, Sacramento, under appointment by the District Court of Appeal, for appellant.
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., Raymond M. Momboisse and Nelson P. Kempsky, Deputy Attys. Gen., Sacramento, for respondent.
*
This is an appeal from a judgment sentencing defendant to state prison after plea of guilty to one count of petty theft with a prior conviction of a felony in this state on March 29, 1963. The appellant contends that:
'1. Appellant was unlearned in police psychology, police interrogation techniques, and the device of hypnosis, and fell a victim thereto.
'2. The Appellant was without funds and therefore unable to afford the defense which would have been necessary to prove his innocence in the case.
'3. The Appellant entered into waivers of certain of his rights and constitutional rights, which waivers were not consciously made or made with full knowledge of their importance.
'4. The search and seizure in the case was illegal, and the illegally obtained evidence was used by the police to coerce the Appellant into pleading guilty.
'5. The admission of the prior offense charged in the count with the offense with petty theft was ill-advised, and the prosecution should have been required to prove the prior, the same as any other charge in the information.
'6. Appellant did not have the best defense available and was, therefore, deprived of a fair trial of his case on the merits.
'7. The arresting officer, the probation officer, and the Public Defender coerced, intimidated, and threatened Appellant into pleading guilty as charged; or, if he did not do so, he would be tried as an habitual criminal and given a life sentence.
'8. Appellant was promised that if he plead guilty as he, in fact, did do, he would be sent to the County Jail, rather than to the State Prison.
1
Bearing in mind that the appellant pleaded guilty in the superior court, it is difficult to understand how the contentions numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are supportable in view of the record. A reading of that record discloses that after appellant had been arraigned an assistant public defender was appointed to represent him, and after separate pleas of not guilty to counts One and Two, and denying a separately alleged prior conviction in the information, the defendant thereafter appeared with counsel and requested leave of court to plead guilty to count Two. At that time the court made the following statements:
'(THE COURT) All right. All jurors are out of the courtroom. Let the record reflect then that all the prospective jurors, the panel, is absent from the courtroom; that the defendant Walter Shanklin is present with his attorney; and that the District Attorney's Office is present.
'Mr. Carroll, you indicated to the Bench that at this time Mr. Shanklin would like to ask permission of the Court to withdraw his plea as to Count Two contained in the Complaint for the purpose of entering a different plea.
'Is that your desire, Mr. Walter Shanklin?
'Count Two is as follows:
'For a further and separate cause of action, being a different offense of the same class of crimes and offenses as the charge set forth in Count One hereof, WALTER SHANKLIN is accused by the District Attorney of said County of Sacramento, by this information of the crime of Petty Theft with a Prior Conviction of a Felony, to wit, Grand Theft committed as follows: That the said WALTER SHANKLIN on the 13th day of May, A.D., 1965, in the said County of Sacramento, in the said State of California, and before the filing of this information, did then and there willfully and unlawfully and feloniously take Clothing of a value of less than Two Hundred Dollars lawful money of the United States, the personal property of Mrs. Donald J. Thurman; that before the commission of the offense hereinbefore set forth in this information, said defendant, WALTER SHANKLIN, was in the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Sacramento, convicted of the crime of Grand Theft, a felony, and the judgment of said court against said defendant in said connection was, on or about the 29th day of March, 1963, pronounced and rendered, and pursuant to said judgment said defendant served a term of imprisonment therefore in the state Prison.(') 'Now, to the allegations of Count Two that I have read you, Mr. Shanklin, what is your plea, sir?
'Do you understand that, Mr. Carroll?
Thereafter, and at the time appointed for receipt of the probation officer's report, the appellant again appeared in court and upon motion of the district attorney, count One and the separately alleged prior conviction were ordered dismissed in the interest of justice and defendant was sentenced to state prison.
It is difficult to imagine how the court could have been clearer or more careful in explaining to appellant the consequences which might result from his plea of guilty to county Two of the information. The English language is only capable of a certain amount of simplification, and any further simplification of the court's statement to the defendant is almost impossible to contrive. As is said in People v. Mullane, 182 Cal.App.2d 765, at page 768, 6 Cal.Rptr. 341, at page 343:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dabney, In re
...It is recognized that the prior conviction may also affect the degree of the offense (see Pen.Code, § 667; and People v. Shanklin (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 94, 52 Cal.Rptr. 28), or the very existence of the offense (see Pen.Code, § 12021; and People v. McGinnis (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 613, 57 Cal......
-
People v. Dabney
...v. Washington (1966) 243 A.C.A. 848, 855, 52 Cal.Rptr. (hearing in Supreme Court denied Sept. 28, 1966); and People v. Shanklin (1966) 243 A.C.A. 94, 102, 52 Cal.Rptr. 28 (hearing in Supreme Court denied Aug. 17, In McGinnis the issue arose on a charge of possession of a firearm by a convic......
-
People v. Prince
...the defendant was charged. (In re Mitchell (1961) 56 Cal.2d 667, 668--670, 16 Cal.Rptr. 281, 365 P.2d 177; People v. Shanklin (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 94, 100--101, 52 Cal.Rptr. 28 (disapproved on other grounds People v. Merriam (1967) 66 Cal.2d 390, 398, 58 Cal.Rptr. 1, 426 P.2d 161); People ......
-
F., In re
...64 Cal.2d 15, 48 Cal.Rptr. 697, 409 P.2d 921.5 Merriam does not mention Ebner. It does, however, expressly disapprove People v. Shanklin, 243 Cal.App.2d 94, 52 Cal.Rptr. 28, which had relied on Ebner. See also People v. Womack, 252 Cal.App.2d 761, 766, fn. 3, 60 Cal.Rptr. 870 and People v. ......