People v. Wallace

• Decision Date: 21 June 1963
• Docket Number: Cr. 4310
• Citation: 217 Cal.App.2d 440,31 Cal.Rptr. 697
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Lawrence E. WALLACE, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 697

31 Cal.Rptr. 697

217 Cal.App.2d 440

PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Lawrence E. WALLACE, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 4310.

District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 3, California.

June 21, 1963.

Francis B. Perry, San Francisco, for appellant (Under appointment of the District Court of Appeal).

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen. of the State of Cal., Albert W. Harris, Jr., Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, for respondent.

DRAPER, Presiding Justice.

Charged with possession of morphine and codeine, defendant pleaded guilty, was sentenced to prison, and, acting in propria persona, filed notice of appeal. We appointed counsel for him. The attorney general moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground it is frivolous.

An appeal from judgment entered upon a guilty plea does not raise issues on the merits, but calls for consideration only of errors going to the jurisdiction or the legality of the proceedings (Stephens v. Toomey, 51 Cal.2d 864, 870, 338 P.2d 182; People v. Mitchell, 185 Cal.App.2d 507, 508, 8 Cal.Rptr. 319; People v. Mullane, 182 Cal.App.2d 765, 768, 6 Cal.Rptr. 341).

Counsel concedes, and our study confirms, that the record reveals no error. It affirmatively shows that defendant was accorded all rights, was represented by counsel of his own choosing, and personally entered the plea. Nevertheless, to enable the raising of any possible question as to accuracy and scope of the record, we granted counsel's request for a month's continuance to permit him further communication with his client. At oral argument, counsel advised us that his client does not contest either the accuracy or the effect of the record. The sole contention advanced by him concerns prior convictions charged and admitted. Four priors were charged, two were admitted, one in 1945 and one in 1958, and the other two charges were dismissed from the present information. Defendant does not question the convictions. He seems to contend that in each of the priors he was tried and sentenced on two counts, in asserted violation of the rule against double punishment (Pen.Code § 654). But we are not here concerned with his sentences of 1945 and 1958. They can be reached only in another proceeding. The priors here charged and admitted were for but one count each. To this limited extent, they do serve to extent his minimum sentence on the present conviction (Health & Saf.Code § 11500). But no impropriety is arguable.

We have searched the record and queried counsel to find whether there is any...