Salazar v. Municipal Court

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
Citation119 Cal.Rptr. 98,44 Cal.App.3d 1024
Decision Date30 January 1975
PartiesTeofilo Orlando SALAZAR, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. The MUNICIPAL COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY JUDICIAL DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 14047.
OPINION

AULT, Associate Justice.

Appellant Teofilo Orlando Salazar appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County denying him a writ of mandate to compel the municipal court to vadate his conviction of misdemeanor drunk driving (Veh.Code § 23102a) entered November 30, 1970 on his plea of guilty while in pro. per. He suffered two more convictions under the same statute, on April 27, 1971 and on May 2, 1973. On his third offense, the Department of Motor Vehicles revoked his driver's license for three years. On appellant's motion the municipal court set aside the 1971 conviction but refused to vacate the 1970 conviction. Appellant brought this proceeding by petitioning the superior court for a writ of mandate, alleging the 1970 conviction was invalid because the record did not contain direct evidence that the trial court had inquired into the factual basis for the plea or had advised appellant of certain constitutional rights.

The only evidence before the superior court consisted of the municipal court docket sheets bearing handwritten notations made by the trial judge, and a so-called 'Tahl' waiver form signed and initialed by appellant. On the basis of this evidence, the superior court concluded appellant's guilty plea was valid.

On appeal appellant contends the record is insufficient to support the judgment and the admonitions given by the court before accepting the guilty plea, as reflected by the record, did not meet Boykin-Tahl requirements. (Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1712, 23 L.Ed.2d 274; In re Tahl, 1 Cal.3d 122, 130, 81 Cal.Rptr. 577, 460 P.2d 449.)

DISCUSSION

Appellant's arguments all ignore the impact of the Supreme Court's decision in Mills v. Municipal Court, 10 Cal.3d 288, 110 Cal.Rptr. 329, 515 P.2d 273, decided October 25, 1973, three years after the misdemeanor conviction appellant now seeks to set aside. In Mills the Supreme Court held the Boykin-Tahl doctrine applicable to pleas of guilty in misdemeanor cases, including the requirement the record itself must explicitly demonstrate an awareness and personal waiver of the constitutional rights relinquished by the plea. (Mills, supra, 10 Cal.3d pp. 301--302, 110 Cal.Rptr. 329, 515 P.2d 273.) The rule, however, was made purely prospective, i.e., applicable to guilty pleas entered in misdemeanor cases After the date of the decision.

With this in mind, we examine the law with respect to motions to set aside a guilty plea on constitutional grounds as it existed in California before Boykin-Tahl-Mills mandated that the record itself must affirmatively indicate a guilty plea was voluntarily and intelligently entered and that the defendant waived the rights surrendered by the plea.

The procedures to be followed under these circumstances were set forth in Prople v. Coffey, 67 Cal.2d 204, where at pages 217--218, 60 Cal.Rptr. 457, at page 466, 430 P.2d at page 24, the Supreme Court stated:

'First, when a defendant, whether by motion to strike the prior conviction or convictions on constitutional grounds, or by denial of such prior conviction or convictions on constitutional grounds at the time of entering his plea to the same, raises the issue for determination, the court shall, prior to trial, hold a hearing outside the presence of the jury in order to determine the constitutional validity of the charged prior or priors in issue. Second, in the course of such hearing the prosecutor shall first have the burden of producing evidence of the prior conviction sufficient to justify a finding that defendant 'has suffered such previous conviction.' (Pen.Code, § 1025.) Third, when this prima facie showing has been made, the defendant shall thereupon have the burden of producing evidence that his constitutional right to counsel was infringed in the prior proceeding at issue. Fourth, if defendant bears this burden, the prosecution shall have the right to produce evidence in rebuttal. Fifth, the court shall make a finding on the basis of the evidence thus produced and shall strike from the accusatory pleading any prior conviction found to be constitutionally invalid.'

The issue of the validity of the prior...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • People v. Harrison
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • January 20, 1984
    ......v. . Xavier Allen HARRISON, Defendant and Appellant. . Cr. 12656. . Court of Appeal, Third District, California. . Jan. 20, 1984. . As Modified Jan. 24, 1984. . Hearing ...3, 166 Cal.Rptr. 429; People v. Davis (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 270, 275, 163 Cal.Rptr. 22; Salazar v. Municipal Court (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 1024, 1027, 119 Cal.Rptr. 98.) Defendant did not ......
  • People v. Sumstine
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • September 17, 1984
    ...review. [Citations.]' (In re Yurko (1974) 10 Cal.3d 857, 861 [112 Cal.Rptr. 513, 519 P.2d 561]. Italics added.) Salazar v. Municipal Court (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 1024 , cited by respondent for the proposition that appellant made insufficient allegations of constitutional deficiency of the pri......
  • People v. Sumstine
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • October 6, 1983
    ...[Citations.]" (In re Yurko (1974) 10 Cal.3d 857, 861, 112 Cal.Rptr. 513, 519 P.2d 561. Emphasis added.) Salazar v. Municipal Court (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 1024, 119 Cal.Rptr. 98, cited by respondent for the proposition that appellant made insufficient allegations of constitutional deficiency o......
  • Ganyo v. Municipal Court
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • April 27, 1978
    ...to the law with respect to motions to set aside guilty pleas on constitutional grounds before Tahl-Mills. (Salazar v. Municipal Court (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 1024, 119 Cal.Rptr. 98.) As was stated in Salazar "The issue of the validity of the prior conviction, however, can be put in issue only ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT