Winton v. Municipal Court

Decision Date14 May 1975
Citation48 Cal.App.3d 228,121 Cal.Rptr. 561
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesGordon H. WINTON, Jr., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MUNICIPAL COURT FOR the SACRAMENTO JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY, Defendant; The PEOPLE of the State of California, Real Party in Interest and Appellant. Civ. 14605.
Coombs, Manley, Root & Rose by Michael A Manley, Sacramento, for plaintiff and respondent

Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen. by Janice Hayes, Deputy/Atty. Gen., Sacramento, for real party in interest and appellant.

PARAS, Associate Justice.

On January 28, 1970, the plaintiff Gordon H. Winton, Jr., a member of the California State Bar for at least fifteen years and an assemblyman and chairman of the Assembly Criminal Procedures Committee, appeared at the morning session of the defendant Sacramento Municipal Court before Judge Thomas Wallner. The purpose of the appearance was to plead to a misdemeanor drunk driving charge (Veh.Code, § 23102, subd. (a)), which had been filed against him. Together with a number of other persons charged with Vehicle Code violations, he received collective advice from Judge Wallner, pertinent portions of which we quote as follows: 1

'Ladies and gentlemen, if I may have your attention, I'll advise you now of your rights in this court today and in the future.

'When the Deputy District Attorney calls your name, you will please come forward. If, for any reason, you want a continuance, please ask for it immediately. You may want a continuance to hire a lawyer, to get some money together to pay a fine, to get the results of some chemical test that you may have submitted to, or any number of other reasons. No reasonable request for a continuance will be refused.

'If you are willing to go forward today, the Deputy District Attorney will tell you of the charges pending against you. These charges are contained in a complaint which has been prepared and filed by the District Attorney's office.

'If you admit the truth of the charges, you will enter a plea of guilty, and, if you enter a plea of guilty, in most cases, judgment and sentence will be imposed this day. If you deny the truth of the charges, you will enter a plea of not guilty. If you enter a plea of not guilty, you will be asked 'Do you want a Court trial or a jury trial?'

'A Court trial is before a judge sitting alone. A jury trial is before a judge sitting with a jury of twelve people . The jury is chosen from a jury panel, usually composed of thirty-five to forty jurors, which panel, in turn, is chosen from the community by the Jury Commissioner.

'You are entitled to be represented by a lawyer at all stages of the proceedings. And, if you do not have the money to hire a lawyer of your choice, ask me, and I will appoint a lawyer to represent you at no expense to you.

'At your trial, the People have the burden of proving you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. You have nothing to prove, as you are presumed to be innocent.

'You have the right to use the processes of this court to subpoena any witnesses that may exist to testify on your behalf.

'At your trial, you have a right to confront the witnesses called by the District Attorney's office, to cross-examine these witnesses. You have a right to remain silent. You have no duty to incriminate yourself. That is, you do not have to take the witness stand and be a witness against yourself.

'. . .nes

'If you are found guilty or plead guilty, judgment and sentence will be imposed. It '. . .err

will consist of imprisonment in the County Jail, the payment of a fine, the suspension of your driving privilege, or, in those cases where I feel no punishment is justified or necessary, no punishment will be imposed. I will say, 'The proceedings are suspended.' That means that, while you may have made a mistake, I don't feel that it's necessary to change your attitude by punishing you, that, perhaps, it was just an error in judgment that you have made, and it's not likely to happen again.

'I would admonish you people who are here as defendants today that you are here charged with the commission of crimes. Most of you do not feel that you are criminals. Most of you are in favor of law and order. This is the hue and cry in our society today. I am perfectly aware that we are all subject to the errors and caprices of the human heart, and I'll be lenient with the first offender. But the person who shows me by his record that he cannot, he does not, he will not obey the traffic laws--particularly, if what he has done is a willful violation of the law--he can expect to find himself in the County Jail.'

Thereafter, plaintiff's case was called, and we quote from the reporter's transcript:

'MR. FRANCHI (The Deputy District Attorney): Gordon Winton, Jr.

'DEFENDANT: Plead not guilty, your Honor, waive time, ask for a Court trial.

'MR. FRANCHI: Your Honor, we move to ask for a jury trial on this matter.

'THE COURT: Did you have special instructions? I don't know about that District Attorney's office. They're really gung-ho. You're (They're) 2 entitled to a jury, Mr. Winton.

'DEFENDANT: I realize that. I'm an attorney.

'THE COURT: I know that, sir. It will go on the jury setting calendar. What would be your convenience?

'. . .URT

'DEFENDANT: February 5th is the next setting calendar?

'MR. FRANCHI: That's at nine o'clock in the morning.

'DEFENDANT: Nine o'clock on February 5th, if I may.

'MR. FRANCHI: And you do waive time?

'DEFENDANT: I waive time, yes.

'THE COURT: February 5th. Time is waived.'

Sometime thereafter a recess was taken, and plaintiff spoke with Judge Wallner in chambers. The court was then again called into session and the following occurred:

'. . .e t

'MR. FRANCHI: Your Honor, you want to recall the matter of--

'THE COURT: Yes, at the bottom of page six.

'MR. FRANCHI: Gordon Winton, Jr.

'THE COURT: Yes.

'DEFENDANT: Your Honor, at this time I would like to withdraw my not guilty plea and change it to a guilty plea.

'THE COURT: You're sentenced to pay a fine of two fifty plus the tax or twenty-five days in the County Jail. I'll make an order you be allowed to have your driver's license. And you want a stay of execution?

'DEFENDANT: Five days, your Honor?

'THE COURT: . . . That's next Tuesday.

'DEFENDANT: Thank you, your Honor. Yes.'

Nothing more was done by plaintiff with reference to this conviction until well over The motion was argued before Judge Sheldon H. Grossfeld on Friday, November 9, 1973, and an evidentiary hearing was conducted on the following Monday, November 12, 1973. (In re Woods (1966) 64 Cal.2d 3, 9--11, 48 Cal.Rptr. 689, 409 P.2d 913.) Plaintiff testified in support of his motion. Judge Grossfeld denied the motion, stating in part:

two years later. On September 18, 1973, plaintiff was arrested and charged with misdemeanor drunk driving, again in the defendant municipal court. The complaint charged the 1970 offense as a prior conviction, thus invoking among other penalties the then mandatory minimum five day jail sentence of subdivision (d) of section 23102 of the Vehicle Code (although a minimum, the sentencing courts appear to treat the five days as a maximum) and the one year operator's license suspension of subdivision (c) of section 13352 of the Vehicle Code. On October 26, 1973, through counsel, plaintiff filed a motion in municipal court to strike the 1970 conviction as invalid, because allegedly (1) plaintiff did not waive his right to counsel, and (2) Judge Wallner coerced the plea of guilty, thus making it involuntary.

'(y)ou have a situation where he (plaintiff) comes in, he has a conference with the Judge. He knows what's going to happen. And . . . the Court is now asked to set aside a plea based upon the fact, I assume, coercion by Judge Wallner which the Court finds extremely difficult to believe. . . . ( ) Mr. Winton's own testimony is notoriety, the publicity of the jury trial was certainly a factor. . . . so we are really called upon to set aside his plea on the basis of non-waiver of counsel by an attorney who is fully aware of this right, who entered--wanted to enter the plea, decided a jury trial, for whatever the reasons, . . . wasn't the road to go. That he will get it disposed of with the minimum fine and a (retention) of his license. ( ) There is no question that at the time that Mr. Winton entered the plea, he knowingly and voluntarily entered that plea of guilty. And the Court so finds. The motion will be denied. ( ) Specifically, the Court finds (that at) the time of the entry of plea, the plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered into.'

The 1973 complaint proceeded to jury trial on November 13, 1973, and on November 16, the jury rendered a verdict of guilty. Prior to sentence and on December 10, 1973, a petition for writ of mandate was filed by plaintiff in Superior Court to compel the defendant municipal court to set aside and strike the 1970 conviction for the same alleged constitutional invalidity. A non-evidentiary hearing was held in the superior court before Judge Irving H. Perluss on December 26, 1973, and again on February 22, 1974. On March 5, 1974, the superior court made an order granting the petition and commanding the defendant municipal court to set aside the 1970 conviction. The real party in interest (the People) has appealed from the judgment entered pursuant to that ruling.

SCOPE OF REVIEW

When the 1973 complaint charging a misdemeanor was filed in the municipal court, (which court, and not the superior court, had jurisdiction thereof--Pen.Code, § 1462), it became solely that court's business to process the case in all erspects. It was for that court to rule on all motions, including the motion to strike the prior conviction; the superior court had no jurisdiction over the defendant, the offense, the proceeding, or any motions connected therewith. (Cal.Const. art. VI, § 5; Pen.Code, § 1462; In re McKinney (1968) 70 Cal.2d 8, 73...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • People v. Superior Court (Williams)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • July 31, 1992
    ...Mission Imports, Inc. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 921, 927, fn. 5, 184 Cal.Rptr. 296, 647 P.2d 1075; Winton v. Municipal Court (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 228, 237, 121 Cal.Rptr. 561; Mosby v. Superior Court (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 219, 228, 117 Cal.Rptr. 588; accord. Shipp v. Superior Court (......
  • James H., In re
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • March 19, 1985
    ...record, had extensive personal exposure to law enforcement personnel and judicial proceedings. (Cf. Winton v. Municipal Court (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 228, 242, 121 Cal.Rptr. 561.) Finally, immediately after being informed of his right to remain silent, minor, represented by counsel, expressly ......
  • People v. Escarcega
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 14, 1986
    ... ... Raul ESCARCEGA, Defendant and Appellant ... B004487 ... Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California ... Oct. 14, 1986 ... Review Denied Feb. 5, ... (Cf. Eshaghian v. Municipal Court (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 1070, 1079, 214 Cal.Rptr. 712.) "The term 'exceptional circumstance' ... (See Winton v. Municipal Court (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 228, 236-237, 121 Cal.Rptr. 561; cf. People v. Shelley ... ...
  • People v. Fulkman
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 22, 1991
    ...or superior) made whatever findings were necessary to support the judgment or order. [Citations.]" (Winton v. Municipal Court (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 228, 236, 121 Cal.Rptr. 561.) Here the magistrate concluded that the officers' actions were reasonable under the circumstances. In making her de......
  • 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