Vasquez v. District Court of Appeal, Fifth App. Dist.
Decision Date | 14 May 1963 |
Citation | 30 Cal.Rptr. 467,381 P.2d 203,59 Cal.2d 585 |
Court | California Supreme Court |
Parties | , 381 P.2d 203 Modesto Querioz VASQUEZ, Petitioner, v. DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, Respondent; The PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest. S. F. 21258. |
Modesto Querioz Vasquez, in pro. per., and Joseph I. Kelly, San Francisco, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for petitioner.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., and Doris H. Maier, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent and real party in interest.
Petitioner filed notice of appeal from a judgment of conviction of a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11501 and as an indigent requested respondent District Court of Appeal to appoint counsel to assist him. Invoking the practice authorized by People v. Hyde, 51 Cal.2d 152, 154, 331 P.2d 42, respondent denied the request on the ground that an independent investigation of the record showed that it would not be of advantage to defendant or helpful to the court to have counsel appointed. Petitioner seeks mandamus to compel respondent to appoint counsel.
In Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 816, 9 L.Ed.2d 811, the United States Supreme Court held the Hyde practice unconstitutional, noting that
Such a practice denies the equal protection of the laws: 'There is lacking that equality demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment where the rich man, who appeals as of right, enjoys the benefit of counsel's examination into the record, research of the law, and marshalling of arguments on his behalf, while the indigent, already burdened by a preliminary determination that his case is without merit, is forced to shift...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Collins
...direction of said case and of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 and Vasquez v. District Court of Appeal, 59 A.C. 606, 30 Cal.Rptr. 467, 381 P.2d 203 (cf. In re Martin, 58 Cal.2d 133, 142, 23 Cal.Rptr. 167, 373 P.2d 103) we, on May 28, 1963, recalled the remitti......
-
Ballard v. Superior Court of San Diego County
... ... James, Asst. Atty. Gen., James Don Keller, Dist. Atty., and Richard H. Bein, Deputy Dist. Atty., ... (See People v. Justice Court (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 256, 8 Cal.Rptr. 176; Cal. Criminal Law ... 2d 99, 338 P.2d 447, 72 A.L.R.2d 1116; Vasquez v. District Court of Appeal (1963) 59 Cal.2d 585, ... ...
-
Blair v. People of State of California, 18949.
...would undoubtedly have appointed counsel to represent Blair. This is made clear by the decision in Vasquez v. District Court of Appeal, 59 Cal.2d 585, 30 Cal. Rptr. 467, 381 P.2d 203. In that case the California Supreme Court, in view of Douglas, issued a peremptory writ of mandamus requiri......
-
Nash, In re
...counsel to represent an indigent defendant on his appeal from a criminal conviction. (See also Vasquez v. District Court of Appeal, 59 Cal.2d 585, 586-587, 30 Cal.Rptr. 467, 381 P.2d 203.) We believe that the requirement of the Douglas case is met, however, when, as in this case, counsel is......