*1 May 5, 1967.] Bank. No. 10853. [Crim. Respondent, LeROY ROY PEOPLE, Plaintiff and THE Appellant. CARTER, Defendant *2 appointment by Supreme Wolman, Court, under Martin Appellant. & Defendant and Scott for and Gillin . Attorney Lynch, James, Thomas C William E. General, Attorney General, Anthony and Summers, Assistant M. Deputy Attorney General, Respondent. for Plaintiff and MOSK, J. again Once the failure aof trial court to navi- adroitly Scylla gate denying a between the of defendant the Charybdis right own and to determine his fate of violat- right by acceptance ing his to counsel an ineffectual of waiver brought prosecution grief. has appeals judgments from Defendant of kidnap- conviction of (Pen. ing robbery purpose of Code, 209) and § with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, while armed 211a). argues, inter alia, Defendant that his waiver § of at trial was and conditional that the failure of the accept trial court to the condition or defendant advise at the purported reject time of his waiver that it intended to deprived condition was error which defendant of his constitu- We tional to counsel. have concluded that defendant did effectively not proceeded counsel, waive and since the trial counsel, judgments without of conviction must be reversed. Defendant, charged with Russell Gordon, one in count an kidnaping I information May with Coran Homer on robbery, alleged it was that at time of the commission of the offense defendant and deadly weapon. were armed Gordon with In count II
defendant, Gordon, charged with robbing Russell May 29, Coran of alleged $59 Homer and was the time of the commission of the offense defendant and deadly weapon. were armed with Defendant is Gordon only party are with whom we here concerned. prior trial, granted In the four months defendant was changes of On counsel. October numerous continuances attorney called and defendant’s moved 19, 1965, ease was that defendant be substi- and further relieved to be moved joined in the persona. Defendant motion propria tuted thereupon attorney granted. district reminded the The requires inquiry to be the law some form trial court that ability before an to defend himself to defendant’s made as question occur, can and undertook to defend- waiver effective ant as follows: attorney] Carter, [deputy : Mr. what is “Mr. district Ross Thirty. age, Mr. your ? The Defendant : Ross: And what sir High gradu- schooling you-had? school have Defendant: high graduate. you Have had You are a school ate. Mr. Ross: any college The Defendant: No. Mr. courses kind? you go Louis, : to school? St. Ross: Where did The Defendant you you repre- capable feel are Mr. Ross Do Missouri. senting : do, granted I I am yourself? Yes, The Defendant: if you library. Do what the use the law know Mr. Ross: Yes, I do. Mr. crimes are with? Defendant: you charged with? The Defendant: What are Ross: Robbery crimes Kidnapping, Mr. Ross : You Grand Theft. Robbery is ? what the crime : understand Yes. Mr. Ross: You understand Defendant Kidnap- what the crime questions. no other If the ping is; is that correct? I have *3 Very He : well. is Court feels is capable—The Court right. ready capable defending All are to himself. We following proceedings had in proceed. (Whereupon, the were please Will clerk swear in the open court:) : the The Court duly panel. jury panel was sworn to answer (Whereupon, the following which questions touching upon qualifications, their clerk.) Well, 12 called : ladies names were The Court my jury panel, will address remarks to gentlemen of the I jurors selected, names and then ask the whose have been explanation panel to to the of the other members listen questions jurors, that will be asked of these ease and also position you occupy jury it will so, box, in the in the event questions. necessary repeat the information or the to be lawyers approach (Whereupon, the bench. follow- Can ing proceedings had at outside the were bench You jury:) : want a motion ? : The Defendant The Court go library to to the a motion—time law to wanted Yes. I I to case went trial. That’s what I ashed review this before ask it court I came here and I would I ashed in before for for. pro. I go thing per., here. I want to but wanted for the same
669 library. permission you to law : use the Court What is The up Maybe get in the law ? can want look we for Dependant I you. my : to review wanted case. I want to The my transcript had prepare my case. This is the first time I my Honor, originally Mr. Ross: Your this case hand. came from I think ‘A’. it’s too Let’s The Court: late. see. You you arraigned 1 and were June were notified at that time lawyer. your you to have You said would. The set case was Dependant: pay trial. I couldn’t continue I him and lawyer. my This is the I dismissed the time have had first transcript, if possibly prepare myself I could everything preliminary heard at the case—The Court: You just hearing. transcript, That’s all that is what Depend- anything heard. There isn’t different there. though don’t go I still feel as I can in as short a time ant: my transcript. Very without The Court: Motion is denied. Dependant put well. I: would like to on the record that it impossible myself pro. per. me to defend without ” (Italics permission library. of the law added.) Thereupon trial was steadfastly resumed with defendant refusing participate because of the court’s failure to meet the condition of his waiver. Subsequently, defendant was guilty Found of all crimes and sentenced state prison. Speaking to counsel and the effective waiver thereof, Douglas we declared v. (1964) 61 Cal.2d “ 130, Cal.Rptr. 884, 434-435 392 P.2d ‘The [38 964]: is a sounsel fundamental constitutional right, which has been ;arefully guarded by (In James, the courts of re this state.’ 302, 38 Cal.2d 310 596].) Meaningfully applied, [240 right to counsel includes opportunity to receive ‘effective preparation lid in (Powell and trial of the case.’ v. Ala 45, bama, 287 158, 172, U.S. 71 53 55, L.Ed. S.Ct. 84 [77 Mattson, 777, A.L.R. v. 51 Cal.2d 790 [336 sure, 937].) right may To be this (Johnson waived be Zerbst, 304 458, U.S. 465 1461, 1467, L.Ed. 58 S.Ct. 357, 362]; People Rocco, A.L.R. Cal. P. finding ‘a 104]), lightly but waiver is not made.’ (Moore v. Michigan, 355 U.S. L.Ed.2d *4 pointed 191].) S.Ct. ‘It has been indulge out that “courts rvery presumption against reasonable waiver” of funda rights presume nental constitutional and that we “do not icquiescence in rights.” loss fundamental A waiver is 670 relinquishment ordinarily or abandonment of a an intentional ’ Zerbst, supra, privilege. (Johnson v. 304 right U.S.
known 146 1019, 58 A.L.R. at p. p. 464 L.Ed. at S.Ct. [82 ” applicable principles equally are pp. 361-362].) These right criminal to counsel state waivers of asserted Cochran, 506, 515 (Carnley v. 369 U.S. proceedings.’ [8 only 884].) must the waiver be 70, 77, 82 Not L.Ed.2d S.Ct. only by defendant who has be made unqualified, but intelligent ‘an rights and who has apprised of his been ’ (In 31 consequences Tedford, of his act. re conception ”1 3].) 693, 695 P.2d Cal.2d present matter there was no effective waiver In the Manifestly, counsel right a waiver of to counsel. by a defendant cannot be effective unless conditional is made accepted by it is clear from the court. Here the condition proceed willingness to without that defendant’s the record upon belief, his mistaken reinforced predicated unequiv promptly and by of the trial the failure imposed by defendant, reject ocally condition meaningful access to and use permitted sort of would be library facilities. People Douglas expressed in v. the view While we adhere to 61 that “the to counsel (1964) supra, Cal.2d orderly adminis used efficient may not be subvert Thomas, v. 58 131 justice (People Cal.2d tration Bentvena, 319 P.2d Cal.Rptr. 161, 373 United States dilatory and its utilization as tool 916, 936), F.2d Adamson, permitted (People purposes may be Cal.2d not 13].),” find the eases cited we 320, 332-333 [210 (1962) distinguishable. In v. Thomas Cal.Rptr. 161, 97], defendant, Cal.2d procedure versed in criminal although lawyer, well throughout competently trial. represented himself Thomas present matter, defendant in Moreover, unlike library prepare his many in the law permitted hours holding Further, that our noted Thomas case. applicable we concep intelligent who, with an “A defendant aid of consequences act, of his declines the tion of the unaware defendant here was . .” We believe the counsel. . purported consequences waiver, as he believed of his the true His facilities. permitted reasonable use of he would be throughout was consistent with belief. the trial conduct proceed without counsel to L. of an accused’s 1The entire area (1965). in Minn. Rev. 1133 Note an excellent discussed
671 People (1961) 195 distinguishable is v. Ortiz Cal. Also Cal.Rptr. wherein App.2d 398], 112 the defendant was [15 precisely denied, that defendant here was “a granted persona. propria trial in prepare to for couple of weeks” Cal.App.2d People (1963) Cal.Rptr. 223 658 v. Nunn [35 despite repeated warnings 884], nonindigent, who involved apparently trial court the refused to and continuances employ private Moreover, the defendant was counsel. “did not well in with counsel” he should aware if he come that Similarly, People in prepared try (1963) the case. Smith to Cal.Rptr. Cal.App.2d 119], 394 the defendant dis [36 sought original attorney appointment of new prosecution trial and in middle after in had rested its ease chief. speculation People’s in “appel- We find no merit reject proffered library.” chance use the to to lant seemed transcript2 offering appears from the the court It merely library, a brief of a rather than defendant tour an appropriate make use of its facilities opportunity to or to transcript conjunction study preliminary with those facilities. presented Although question is here not whether library had right fact to use research facilities defendant in made, appro unconditional waiver was it is whether an but upon purposes priate the former issue for to comment (Code 53.) In re Proc., We held in Allison retrial. Civ. § Cal.Rptr. 593, 425 ante, pp. (1967) statutory engage [legal] 193], that no to “There upon duty laid research; nor is there constitutional provide long as purpose, facilities for that so access to states impeded.” thereby unreasonably (See is not to the courts (9th 1961) 290 F.2d 632.) v. Bailleaux Cir. also Hatfield approval that inmates Allison, however, we further noted library prisons enjoy the use law facilities prisoner awaiting of California that a It where available. follows likewise, represent himself at a should trial who wishes to following way, under occurred: 2After trial was library. make We will the law You want see Court: “The you anything arrangements. in the law asked if there is I have will try get get you, you and also I will want. someone We library. you go through during the law let the recess and take arrangements enough, try make some other If isn’t we will possibly you. Every make has been made concession that we can you. qualify Defendant: I don’t think minutes would me “The myself at all.’’ in court defend legal allowed such minimum, be reasonable access to materials facility in Having as are available at which he confined. requirements, minimum we leave to the thus stated the sound implementation rule, the trial discretion of felony noting only many the minimum cases be sufficient.3 although Finally, every defendant in a criminal case represent himself if has constitutional he so elects I, People v. Harmon (Cal. 13; (1960) art. Const., Cal.2d § Cal.Rptr. 329]; 351 P.2d v. Mattson 9, 15 [4 (1959) 937]; 788-789 51 Cal.2d Cal.Rptr. Cal.App.2d 716, 722 (1965) 232 Shields *6 Shroyer Cal.App.2d 478, 203 482 People (1962) v. Cal. [21 Rptr. may accepted of 460]), before his waiver counsel be the competency duty bound to trial court determine e.g., In represent (See, (1965) himself. re Johnson 62 Cal.2d Cal.Rptr. 420], 228, 398 P.2d and eases there 325, 335-337 [42 “ (at p. in cited.) 335), As stated Johnson ‘the court anyone accept from accused a a waiver of counsel of cannot public determining first offense without serious charge, the the nature the the elements of “understands may available, pleas and or the offense, the defenses be [quoting from In re James be exacted punishments which ’ ” 302, 313 P.2d (1952) 596]].” 38 Cal.2d [240 ability to defend himself fulfills inquiry into the defendant’s purpose. only compe- It serves not to determine his a two-fold him alert to the seriousness of action he tence, but also to the pitfalls may expect contemplates as well encounter. involves an of discretion This determination exercise abuse, judge showing which, in the absence of a by the trial People Shroyer appeal. e.g., (See, disturbed on will People Cal.App.2d 482-483; (1962) supra, 203 ; (1959) Cal.App.2d 127, 168 131 P.2d O’Ward [335 Cal.App.2d 412, 417 Loignon (1958) 160 People v. [325 scope inquiry course, vary according 541].) will, charged, On the basis of the crime to the seriousness of (1962) supra, People 58 Cal.2d defendant v. Thomas 3Thus in many guard. permitted under It is axiomatic hours in the law crime, greater indulgence the trial more serious the already example, judge a defendant. For has should show towards judge to the sound discretion of the trial been held that within advisory (See (1959) appoint proper People v. Linden in a ease. 397]; People (1959) v. Mattson 51 Cal.2d 52 Cal.2d P.2d 937]; (1960) Cal.App.2d 307, see v. Jackson also 849].) Cal.Rptr. excerpts transcript hereinbefore, from the set out we grave sufficiency doubts entertain as to the of the court’s cursory inquiry competency represent into defendant’s in himself this case. imply impart not mean to We do the trial must seeking legal a appear propria education to defendant persona. possess Nor need such a knowledge defendant understanding attorney and (see of an v. Linden supra, 17) (1959) very 52 Cal.2d discrep- it is the indeed, legal ancy layman between the skills those practitioner deep protect licensed which fosters our concern against hasty to the assistance of counsel
improvident However, reviewing judge’s waiver. a trial competence represent determination of defendant’s himself, accept superficial inquiry. we will not a mere judgments are reversed. Traynor, J., Tobriner, J., Peters, Burke, J., J., C. Sullivan, J., concurred. McCOMB, judgments J. I dissent.I would affirm the expressed by the reasons opinion Mr. Fourt Justice by prepared him for Appeal, Appellate the Court of Second District, One, Division Presiding concurred Mr. Justice Wood and Lillie, quoted Justice which is in full below: appeal judgment is an This from kidnap- of conviction ing robbery. Angeles County an information filed in Los on June *7 1965, defendant, Gordon, charged with Russell was count I kidnaping with May 1965, Homer 29, Coran on alleged and was the time of the commisison of the offense the defendants were armed with a deadly weapon, wit, pistol. to a .32 caliber In automatic was count defendant, II charged with Russell Gordon, robbing with May 1965, alleged 29, Homer Coran on $59 and was at the time of commission of the the offense the defendants were armed with a deadly weapon, namely, .32 a caliber pistol. Appellant here, Carter, only automatic was the defend- ant at the trial with which we are jury a here concerned. guilty and, trial was found as further, it was found that he was armed at the time of his arrest. appellant brought 22, 1965, was before court June On arraignment requested 25, for and to June continuance employ 25, 1965, 1965, to allow him time to counsel. June On appointed appellant public represent defender to was July 1, 1965, the defend- his codefendant Gordon. On each of present, pleaded guilty their and trial ants, with counsel August August 1965, 10th, 1965. On
was set August 17, moved for a continuance the trial to defendants 1965, private August enable them counsel. On to to secure public appeared 17th, 1965, with defendant Gordon appellant appeared as with William defender appellant by attorney. A was his motion made Leeds as granted. attorney and Leeds as his the same was substitute trial date to continue the Each defendant made motion September September appellant 21, 1965, was 1965. On Attorney attorney, present in court William Leeds. appellant place as counsel for was substituted Jermiah trial was con- Leeds. On motion of defendants the William 1965, a motion 1965. October tinued to October On The motion at- appellant for a continuance was denied. attorney torney out of record Casselman to substitute J. Appellant thereupon appellant made motion was denied. attorney himself as his own and that motion to substitute Department appellant Trial of transferred denied. department, E In the latter named Southwest forthwith. 19,1965, p.m. the case was called for trial at 1:52 October attorney firm Adíen made R. Adieu of the and Casselman attorney relieved as of record a motion propria persona. appellant motion was be substituted in Such jurors granted. prospective Outside denied, having motion “it appellant’s for a continuance was competent first established that the been Defendant ’’ represent himself. granting Adíen court after Mr. stated to the representing appellant him from motion to relieve request privilege use the would law “the defendant judge replied, “I library as he don’t is incarcerated.” try will it out know how we can do that. We and work right. continuing, words, “All Mr. way.” and In other ’’ represent yourself Carter, you replied, want ? and Carter join said, in the sir.” then “So motion “Yes, your lawyer responsibility from further to release ’’ ’’ said, “Yes, proceedings ? and sir. age Inquiry and schooling; then made about Carter’s *8 thirty age years high- and a it was ascertained that he was capable graduate. When asked if felt that was school he he said, “Yes, do, granted I if I am representing himself, he library.” fully aware of the law He of the serious- use charged. with which ness of the crimes he The court “capable defending found that Carter himself” and proceeded with the trial. prospective jurors Outside of of the go that wanted time law
stated he to review judge the ease before he went to trial. The indicated that it arraign- was too late called attention to the fact that the ment was impossible June 1965. Carter then that it indicated would be him permission to defend himself without library. properly use the law The advised Carter that brought he, Carter, had situation himself; the entire onto that he, going Carter, had been told that the ease trial, lawyer ready represent had a who was and able him and lawyer he, Carter, very day. jury had “fired” his A proceeded was selected and the cause to trial. prosecution witnesses, victim, called two a taxi-cab driver, arresting police positively and an officer. victim placed gun identified Carter as the man had who close to his money further, head and demanded his and, of the one men gunpoint get had passenger who directed into the seat of his taxi-cab. that thereafter He said one of the pointed gun men held a himat while the other drove the cab away. gun posses- The victim identified the found in Carter’s being robbery sion as ing. like the one used in kidnap- He testified that several blocks from where the occurred, stop, defendants caused the cab to directed the get victim to undress and had him that trunk cab; into the he, victim, later, and after Gordon and Carter left scene, cab, extricated himself from the trunk of the called dispatcher, who, turn, police. Approximately called the money $59 in was taken from the victim Carter. One of currency bills or police was torn at one of the corners. "When complete arrived, gave description the victim them kidnaped had him. men who robbed shortly testified receiving Officer Munoz after police robbery, partner radio call about the he and his saw description hurrying two men who matched the of the robbers stopped across a street The officers intersection. the men shortly weapon during thereafter conducted a search they pistol hip found a Colt automatic the rear .32 gun with live ammunition was loaded pocket of Carter. *9 ready gun and to fire. The was was magazine and chamber conducted and some Carter, a further search was from taken currency pants of Carter. The victim taken from being currency from Carter as taken some of identified robbery. police from him the A currency taken identified and his the victim Carter and lineup conducted kidnapers. and being the robbers as codefendant if desired to ask the at the trial he officer asked declined, saying: and he any questions put Honor, I would like to in the Dependant: Tour “The questions any any ask the witnesses that I refuse to record way I am such as this because way participate myself pro per defend didn’t intend to and I qualified to, today myself prepare to have time to for intended because I ’' trial. particular this replied: just Well, Carter, that isn’t a true Mr. state- “The Court: you appeared at that time. You asked ment. Here on June appointed lawyer the Public Defender’s Office and so for they asked for a continuance you, and on June lawyer for (cid:127) produce. any you could so that other facts or that time you wanted to do. whatever ( t 25. Then at And it was continued until June “The Court: again and the the trial was asked to be continued that time again August again—continued until trial was continued August they comply your request. Then 10 it could on so August again. until 17. Then It was continued was continued you change lawyers you you said wanted to so at that time Leeds, you hired changed lawyers and a William did. Mr. You represented you, and asked for—that the then Leeds
so Mr. request granted your it continued, and trial Court September 21. again, and continued it until it it continued September trial on 21. You that time we came for Then at go didn’t want to to trial and You the case continued. wanted change lawyers, you The Court you so did. wanted to you said lawyers. opportunity change the You did. granted you an lawyer named Mr. lawyers again, and a changed You your lawyer, appointed then the Casselman James again until again, and it was continued was continued case today. That’s 19. October today you “The Then on today. Court: come on for trial lawyers You have had the benefit now of three different you today you get ready it, now and then when try come on you you lawyer appeared advise want dismiss the today, here too. < £ ‘‘ done—every : posible legal Court So we have advice given you, everything possibly has been you we can Then do. permission library, you ask for to use the I tell so all you right, designate, you tell us what want out of the get you. we will We have it here and I will get anything you, designated but there wasn’t anything possibly so I don’t think there is we can do we already give you every opportunity Now, haven’t done to to. anything you is there want to ask this witness ? here £< ' ‘ anything you : Is there want to ask this witness The Court *10 ’?’ here responded by saying: Dependant any
“The : I questions. refuse to ask the witness participate I would like not to be asked in trial whatso- ’’ qualified. ever because I am not judge policeman then dismissed the from further prosecution attendance at the trial. The rested its case and at p.m. 3 :30 9 the matter was continued to following day at day :30a.m. On the next Carter offered testimony no in his argued. behalf. The cause jury was retired to deliberate at 10 :05 a.m. returned with a guilty verdict of charged as in the information and further that found Carter was armed at his the time of arrest. A time of sentence and hearing report probation of a officer was set. At that noted: Very probation report well. I have read the “The Court: very and it is It unfavorable. starts with a number actions going back as far as 1953, '55, ’56, ’58, in ’57, some in ’60, ’61, ’62, ’64, '65. It will be the sentence this Court request probation that the denied, be that the defendant be sentenced to the State Prison for a term to fixed be ’’ Authority. Adult Carter was sentenced 22, 1965, on November for the crime of kidnaping purpose robbery (Pen. Code, 209) § charged having in information, count I of the “defendant alleged.” imposed found armed as No sentence
been the was charges. Appellant appealed “judgment has from the made day 20th entered on the of October . . . and from ... jury the whole thereof.” verdict of the was returned on 1965, judgment made but the November October appeal judgment 1965. assume that We from the 22, 1965. November Appellant intelligent did now asserts that he not make an counsel, jury that waiver that the found he armed charged the time of his arrest while the information that he armed time at the commissionof offenses. again relating No useful would served be listing changes and the the numerous continuances of attor neys appellant say clearly it to this case. stated Suffice represent People Thomas, wanted to himself. 97], Cal.Rptr. it is Cal.2d 131-132 appropriately said: charged “It that no of discretion be manifest abuse can bringing trial to the court in the matter to when it did. ‘To with crime has an hold a defendant absolute right selection, right his own with unlimited counsel upon trial, be insist continuances would subversive of laws—upon prompt and execution of administration depends appar- largely their It is at effectiveness. once must of things court in the nature have some ent the trial judicial matters, to the end business control over such any orderly manner; and if it dispatched an has apparent that such it is us discretion was discretion least instance.’ On at particular abused this [Citations.] prior defendant’s statements the court that two occasions propria persona and did proceeding in not want of his thereto. appointed constituted waivers guaranteed by of counsel ‘The the assistance legal statutory provisions, like other constitutional *11 orderly procedure. only of in the course right, invoked conception intelligent conse- with an of the who, A defendant prior at act, aid to or quences of his declines the trial, his not entitled thereafter the commencement stage advan- interrupt delay at he deems interpose legal assistance. merely demand tageous arraign- justified time his petitioner at the stated When [Citations.] attorney, the court was did need an not ment attitude, His both taking him at word [citations]. trial, that time and at commencement equiva- lent to a final . . .’ declination of counsel. In the [Citation.] instant compre- case cannot be said the waiver was ” hended and understood defendant. [Citation.] Cal.App.2d And in Ortiz, 195 112, 116-117 Cal.Rptr. 398], it is stated -. ' “. . concept . It has been declared to abe sound that it is duty safeguard promote of the court to orderly expeditious (cid:127)and conduct of its guard against business and to inept procedures and unnecessary indulgences which would hinder, hamper tend to delay dispatch the conduct and ’ ” proceedings. its [Citations.] It clear in appellant this case that deliberately stall- ing, procrastinating and seeking one continuance after delay another to the trial of the cause. It was no abuse of appellant. discretion to refuse to further coddle There was no incapacity counsel, day indeed on the of trial counsel was present apparently ready go appellant trial and agreed that counsel should representing be relieved from him. appellant prepared If was not trial, he should not have permitted discharge attorney. of his then It was on the date of trial arraignment some four months after the when appellant made his last motion for a continuance. The disposition are entitled to some considerations in the of crimi- nal matters. appellant As stated, heretofore was sentenced for the crime charged
as I, kidnaping count for the robbery. appellant The information recited that was armed at the time of the commission of the offense. The verdicts recite: “We, Jury in the above entitled action, find the Roy Leroy Defendant guilty of violation of Section Carter (Kidnaping Purpose Penal Code Robbery), felony in Count I of the information. day This 20 of October 1965 RW JONES [s] Foreman ” (Guilty)
Verdict “We, Jury in the above action, entitled find charge against the Defendant Roy Leroy having been armed at the time of his arrest as contained in Count I (Information (Kidnap) of true. (cid:127)(-Indictment day This 20 of October 1965 W. R. JONES [s]
Foreman” *12 charge charge in the information included the time the commission of the offense appellant was deadly weapon, pistol. with a caliber automatic armed .32 requisites of 1158a Penal Code section were fulfilled. (See People Flohr, Cal.App.2d 576, ; v. 862] Cal.App.2d Ahouse, 588-589 Cal.App.2d Cal.Rptr. Cooks, 14-15 819].) appellant demonstrates The uncontradieted evidence pistol at time armed the automatic was in fact and at the time his arrest. kidnaping and the May 15, 1967.] In Bank. Nos. 22480. F. [S. ALAN BAR THE STATE OF GROVE, Petitioner, v. Respondent.
CALIFORNIA, (Consolidated Cases.)