*1 May 15047. 1971.] No. In Bank. [Crim. PEOPLE, Plaintiff and
THE Respondent, RIZER, Defendant and
KLAUS Appellant.
Counsel Court, Silverman, for De- Albert D. under Supreme appointment fendant and Appellant. General, J. William E. Younger, Attorneys
Thomas C. Evelle Lynch General, James, Liebman, and Jane C. At- Assistant Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and torney Respondent.
Opinion MOSK, J. not reason defendant of On July pleaded Code, (Pen. sufficient funds a a without insanity charge issuing check 476a) charge he same case entered the separate § 244). (Pen. Code, As in section assault with a caustic chemical provided § Code, reason defendant not guilty by the Penal who pleads the commission also admits insanity, guilty, thereby without pleading not trial the court sanity of the After a on the issue offense. underlying sane the time of the without a defendant was found to' be sitting jury, of conviction were charged offenses judgments commission entered.1 The sole on this whether defendant’s pleas issue duly appeal the time deficient under standards in effect at constitutionally entry. both The court charges.
Defendant originally pleaded to examine doubt about sanity Ms appointed psychiatrists expressed Code, (Pen. 1368.) Alter the medical testimony, hearing him. § insane ordered Mm to confined defendant was court found that from Atas he was returned at Atascadero State Hospital. Subsequently, further counsel appointed represent proceedings cadero Mm. conviction, charged court found to be 1 defendant was also with a which the
true. 30, 1969, On defendant July requested permission change pleas. He withdrew the of not reason pleaded guilty by insanity to both charges.2 occurred after a change colloquy between and'the trial which will be discussed judge infra. trial,
The two charges were consolidated for and after *3 purposes witnesses, the of hearing testimony other the trial psychiatrists court found defendant to be sane at the the time offenses were committed. actions, Defendant moved for a new trial in both and his motions were denied. 2, 1969, June
On
the United States
decided
Court
Supreme
Alabama,
1709],
with and a him robbery, sentenced to die jury count. The each peti- tioner did not address court and him the asked no judge questions concerning Court reversed the conviction on the plea. Supreme that ground it was error for the trial judge accept petitioner’s guilty without an affirmative showing that it was voluntary. The court held that when a is entered the accused waives the self-incrimination, to trial privilege against compulsory right jury, accusers, to confront his waiver of these three right record, fundamental cannot be from a silent presumed utmost solicitude is demanded in the matter with the accused canvassing to determine whether he has a full connotation understanding its A leaves who fulfills consequences. judge responsibility a record review. adequate appellate Code, charged (Pen. 203), charge mayhem 2 Defendant was also with § but this People justice. dismissed on the motion interests Prior to the dismissal pleaded mayhem
defendant charge. guilty by insanity and not reason of Tahl, later, months in- supra, re 1 Cal.3d decided some five the Boykin had volved a who entered his plea prior petitioner no We reasoned as follows: Prior specific language decision. of con- the waiver of understanding to establish prescribed the court guilty, merely looking attendant upon sequences circumstances to volun- the overall record and ascertain surrounding factor was the of counsel nature of the The crucial tary presence counsel, since, had courts if generally the time of the the accused counsel to the contrary assumed in the absence evidence and take to assure their the accused of his constitutional rights steps inform standards, these petitioner’s plea Judged pre-Boykin protection. Tahl was entered. However, concluded, Boykin law. It made effected a we change *4 unless the record indicates a free that a cannot stand clear of plea guilty abandoned necessarily of the three enumerated waiver of of the nature and consequences guilty a and an understanding insufficient, drawn, inferences, are Mere however plea. plausibly enum of be Each the three must specifically to the accused erated for the of and waived by acceptance benefit deduction opinion his This is not a fair from guilty only of that leaves means assuring but it is the realistic of judge only however, was, be to that be sought. review any may adequate only. given application prospective was no
Defendant and the concede there express contends People him and to confront witnesses against defendant of right waiver his claim.3 in the margin set forth supports colloquy issuing of 3 “The Court: charge No. is one a check without suffi In case (a) Code, felony. of the Penal funds in violation of Section 476 cient say, your attorney have to Hecker the defend “You heard what has had Mr. [alias Rizer], guilty regard your your of not to this present plea ant to wish to withdraw charge guilty by place guilty not reason and to of the not substitute insanity. you your coming fully lawyer “Have this before to this discussed matter with decision? Yes, sir. “Defendant Hecker: “The charged you case? you Do understand what are with in this Court: Yes, “Defendant Hecker: “The Court: What do sir. charge you to be? understand the “Defendant Hecker: That I wrote a check without sufficient funds. amount, be “The Court: a check in what on what bank? That “Defendant Hecker: $231, I think it and the Bank of Chesterfield. “The Court: In Missouri? “Defendant Hecker: Yes. 27, 1967; “The Court: And this is said April to on or about is that have occurred way you it? understand Yes, “Defendant Hecker: sir. you your are to you permitted “The understand that if withdraw Court: Do insist, however, of the to con- that no direct waiver right The People were entered because defendant’s after frontation the Tahl holding was decided but before opinion, insanity effect only that the guilty by not reason not and enter a having sufficient doing drawing be to admit the of this check without that would funds? Yes, “Defendant Hecker: sir. course, present compulsion, no to withdraw the “The Court: You are under plea; you understand that? Yes, “Defendant Hecker: sir. proceed with trial of the case you liberty “The Court: And are perfectly right you to do if day on the You have the scheduled. still want to. No, sir, plead guilty by insanity. “Defendant I Hecker: want reason attorney undoubtedly explained you you “The that if proceed Court: Your has charge you with the not be you presumed trial that would be innocent of the could your guilt beyond found unless a reasonable doubt. established Yes, explained “Defendant Hecker: “The he it to has me. try you jury, Court: if before a And were scheduled case all twelve of jurors agree explained you? would have to on the verdict. Has that been Yes, “Defendant Hecker: sir. time, “The you permitted your Court: If are to withdraw of not at this you doing will freely respects? in all Yes, “Defendant Hecker: sir. “The any against Court: Have you, any your family threats been made member of anyone you change or else to your plea. induce to want to *5 “Defendant Hecker: No. any promises “The Court: Have any you, sort been held out to or has it been suggested you- that “Defendant Hecker: No. “The Court: -will be leniently get dealt with more or you a better break if do this? “Defendant Hecker: No. “The you plead charged against Court: How do to the you offense in Count I of 84006, namely, the indictment in case No. a violation of Section 203 of the Penal California, Code felony, a Mr. Hecker? “Defendant guilty, Hecker: guilty insanity. Not and not reason Now, right. II, “The Court: All with reference Haney to Count Mr. has advised your your the Court that it is wish present plea guilty to withdraw of not to that count place substitute in single plea guilty of not insanity. your reason of Is that wish? Yes, “Defendant Hecker: sir. this, Again, you “The you Court: if do doing do understand the effect of that it charged will be to admit the act in Count II of the indictment? Yes, “Defendant Hecker: sir. act, “The Court: you charge And that what do understand the to be in that count? chemical, “Defendant throwing chemical, Hecker: That was a caustic eyes of person. another “The Court: Don Lee Enlow? “Defendant Hecker: I don’t know his name. “The Court: person That is the who is said to be involved here. “Defendant Hecker: Yes. “The Court: This is said to place have taken on or about November 1968. Is you that the date have in charge? mind that is involved in this latter theorize case should be given only. They prospective application Boykin some record be made affirmative only requires court to show that a voluntary plea was they Tahl, asserted, contend that a record made here. it is set forth such Boykin more than for stringent requirements, acceptance plea, Tahl be cases and the additional should only requisites applicable Tahl. in which were entered after pleas First, Boykin is states
There no merit in this argument. specifically that the waiver of the three cannot be from enumerated rights presumed 279]) (395 a silent L.Ed.2d at and the record U.S. at p. p. decision thus more than that an affirmative stands for a precise proposition be made on the issue of waiver. voluntary knowing must merely Indeed, in it from the that the petitioner therein appears opinions did made without its knowledge not claim his or involuntary Second, Tahl that this it manifest from the in consequences. opinion court was addition to those set forth imposing requirements California trial but was for the guidance merely expounding Boykin demands. courts the which the holding specific procedure Tahl, were It is clear exactions explained equally Boykin. to all entered after applicable recites, “necessitates more example, precise however all of a than mere inferences
showing on phases 131), from (1 Cal.3d at and that a fair conclusion drawn” plausibly p. enumerated Boykin is that three therein be mentioned 132). It is further for the benefit of the accused and himby waived (p. uncertainty should avoid that in the courts specified post-Boykin setting 133) and that information for the record (p. produce dictates new which should given prospective ap- procedures 135). were entered after (p. those cases in which *6 plication to “Defendant Hecker: suppose. I I don’t remember the suppose date. I that is the date. “The Court: Again, right have proceed the to to trial this second count in you jury. indictment before a Is it jury, set before a Haney? Mr. Haney: Yes, Honor, your “Mr. it is. “The Court: But you that, Hecker; don’t to do is that correct? want Mr. No, “Defendant Hecker : sir. “The Court: And with any any promises reference to threats or having been made you, to you if I asked in this questions case all of the I have you heretofore asked case, 83502, the other your No. questions answers to those be the same? “Defendant Hecker: Yes. “The Court: No threats have any been made of kind? No, “Defendant Hecker: sir. “The Court: promises No have been made or you? inducements held out to No, “Defendant Hecker: sir.”
41 related to clear that thus made it abundantly prospectivity We to Tahl. Tahl correctly to have subsequent Decisions of the Courts Appeal entered after all case to guilty pleas of that holding interpreted apply 1058, 1071 Boykin. (People v. Vick (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d the date of 741, 744 236]; In re Michael M. (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. [90 597, People v. Jordan (1970) 11 718]; Cal.App.3d see also Cal.Rptr. [89 178, 181 People Gayton (1970) 40]; 10 v. Cal.App.3d 600 Cal.Rptr. [90 891].) Cal.Rptr. [88 the instant that
Moreover, plea be to conclude we would con- People’s to accede was defective even if we were arguendo Tahl forth waiver set prospec- of express tention that requirement Boykin be that cannot interpreted the reason tive This follows for only. was show a affirmatively that the record must
hold merely
Boykin
Tahl we stated
might
made.4 In
and intelligently
Boykin
involved
Supreme Court decisions which refer
4 Tworecent United States
(1970)
(North
v.
400 U.S.
in the
case.
Carolina
present
an issue different than
Alford
160];
162,
Brady
(1970)
U.S. 742 [25
25
L.Ed.2d
91 S.Ct.
v. United States
397
[27
747,
1463].)
question
pleas entered
L.Ed.2d
90
those cases the
was whether
S.Ct.
statute,
Boykin
light
unconstitutional after
prior
the
death
voluntary
of a
declared
punishable by
upholding
kidnaping was
entry
pleas,
provided
of the
that the crime of
jury
only
if the verdict of the
so recommended. In the course
Brady
validity
of the
court stated that
added
new element
understanding
voluntary,
affirmatively
the record must
that
disclose that a
was
essential,
knowledge
consequences
was
and that
a defendant of the
knowledge
likely
rights
be
conse
waiver
constitutional
must
made with
756].)
(397
4,
quences.
p.
p.
pp.
U.S. at
fns.
6
L.Ed.2d at
756 and
760-761
[25
entry
it was said that the standard before and after
was whether the
Alford
voluntary
among
plea represented
of the
choice
the alternative
(400
167-
open
p.
pp.
courses of action
to the defendant.
U.S. at
L.Ed.2d at
[27
168].)
specify
These
which the
declarations
the court do not
the manner in
intelli
gent
rights
affirmatively
they
respect
waiver of
evidenced and
no
do
cast
must
any
upon
anything,
Tahl. If
supports
doubt
the conclusion of
since
Alford
high
because the record
presented
court states that no issue of substance under
was
in Alford
affirmatively
there
showed that the defendant was aware
(400
consequences
fn. 3
p.
of his
at
and the
waived
such a
U.S.
166].)
jurisdictions
p.
L.Ed.2d
cite
for the
People
cases from other
[27
showing
proposition
voluntarily
merely
that a
requires an affirmative
(E.g.,
(1970)
intelligently
State v. Hansen
plausibly is not required surrendered rights the three constitutional the record. be inferred from could waiver of these but that the have However, authority suggested neither we nor any persuasive would satisfy was voluntary showing general well a presumption the record Boykin. might noted that support We self- of confrontation advised of his in Tahl was the petitioner had attorney that his explained acknowledgment his incrimination from to But, it was not necessary we to him. opined, constitutional rights because the facts therein such a rule to the applicability determine inference, no than mere showing Boykin necessitated a more precise evidence, i.e., express specific drawn from matter how plausibly constitutional rights the three the accused of waiver by enumeration 130-132). (1 Cal.3d pp. a guilty surrendered by would rationale alternative Here, even the rejected acceptance which we may from because there was no validate the not against confront witnesses of the right infer defendant was advised was a man facts that the rely him. The upon People had discussed conviction, and that he had a that he intelligence, prior have might circumstances these attorney. with his While change entered intelligently was voluntarily an inference that justified satisfy even do they under the standards applicable Tahl. in suggested alternative the more tolerant interpretation People Gallegos Our (1971) conclusion not inconsistent with 229, Mosley Cal.3d 242 P.2d In re (1970) Cal.Rptr. 237] Mosley Cal.3d 913 464 P.2d we held Cal.Rptr. 473]. that the and Tahl set forth in whenever principles applicable a defendant that he would submit his case on the stipulated transcript under circumstances which submission was preliminary hearing However, would be to a waiver tantamount express required (1 10.) made “in the future.” Cal.3d at fn. only as p. stipulations Gallegos certain occurred The issue in was whether proceedings decisions, which defendant between the period Mosley, be governed claimed to a under should amounted Boykin- Mosley (i.e., the standards of waiver express Taht). be Mosley only. held that would We applied prospectively the fact that trial we relied judges this conclusion reaching primarily Boykin-Tahl could not reasonably expect requirements but also of the type only stipulations applied fact, itself, this Mosley Mosley recognition discussed and that future, Here, its were to be stated that teachings applied *8 43 contrast, faced with a we are not by proceeding question type i.e., all to which should be it is in applicable applied, Furthermore, (unlike Mosley) makes it clear its proceedings. Boykin. are after guilty pleas requirements applicable accepted could have reasonably Under circumstances trial judges anticipated Court’s decision that the United Supreme States fact, described Tahl. it manner proper appears
interpreted Court, court, Los the state’s largest Angeles Superior to Tahl was to defendant who entered prior require approved practice so he waived the acknowledge a guilty by doing (See Los three constitutional surrendered by Angeles Benchbook, Court Criminal Trial Plea Judges’ Guilty, adopted Superior 18, 1969.) courts were also Presumably, following pro- other April cedures dictated in Tahl as by during comparatively expounded brief interval between the two decisions. defendant’s of not reason guilty by
In view of our conclusion that deficient, it is not to discuss his additional necessary insanity the trial court’s contention that the evidence insufficient to support at the committed. determination that he was sane time the offenses were are reversed. judgments Peters, J., Tobriner, J., Sullivan, J., concurred.
BURKE, J.
I dissent.The record in this case contains sufficient facts from
which we
assume that
and intel
may reasonably
from
changed
waived his constitutional
when he
ligently
to not
reason
guilty by
insanity,
Alabama,
1709],
S.Ct.
Although
(1) that it is sufficient that the record contains that defendant was we could assume reasonably apprised *9 44 and intelligently guilty, his constitutional rights pleaded waived
voluntarily three constitutional that each of the (2) that the record must show or confrontation, Boykin (self-incrimination privilege, in rights mentioned and the benefit of enumerated for trial) were and expressly jury specifically In re (See of his guilty to acceptance waved defendant by prior Tahl, Tahl, view that 122, were of the 130-132.) we supra, 1 Cal.3d Boykin the correct one. second, was the more strict interpretation the Boykin itself no requirement decision contains express waived, the of, each of con- that defendant was advised and record show was error held that it Boykin stitutional above. rights simply mentioned that the ascertaining without the court to a guilty trial accept plea the courts and that on appeal and voluntarily given, was intelligently plea basis of a on waiver of these constitutional rights cannot presume Moreover, the United States Supreme cases decided by silent record. totally that we misinterpreted Tahl indicate and Court subsequent fact, that, interpretations” former of our two “plausible and in court. the one intended by of that case was States, Thus, Brady v. United 747, in 397 U.S. L.Ed.2d 742 90 [25 1463], S.Ct. the court as guilty upheld intelligently since, case, the instant record given disclosed that had defendant counsel, been and advised was represented charges against aware him, and entered his without threats or compulsion, promises. Nothing Brady indicates that the record also showed that defendant was advised of, waived, the three constitutional mentioned Boykin, or that fact, such a the court im- showing. such an “The pliedly rejected stating interpretation require- ment that a must be be valid guilty intelligent voluntary has been The new long ... element added in recognized. requirement affirmatively the record must de- disclose that a pleaded guilty plea understandingly voluntarily. who entered his fendant (P. 747, 756]; added.) . . .” 4 L.Ed.2d fn. italics p. [25 Alford, To same effect North 25 Carolina v. 400 U.S. L.Ed.2d 160], S.Ct. wherein defendant to vacate his sought 91 that it was the of fear and coercion. The court ground product that “The standard was and noted remains whether plea represents choice the alternative courses action voluntary among Alabama, defendant. See U.S. 242. open . (P. 168].) . .” L.Ed.2d at a Since p. postconviction disclosed that defendant was advised as to his hearing attorney on a and as to the of a plea, consequences Boykin. there Again, court found no “issue of substance” under of self-incrimination indication no specific rights privi- Alford confrontation, trial enumerated for waived lege, jury to his guilty. *10 Brady Tahl this court extended confirm thus Alford of that Since Tahl’s additional confines beyond necessary opinion. fact are but in extend far beyond not dependent requirements upon case, those should be held to guilty pleas inapplicable requirements (See People v. to the date which Tahl was decided. entered prior upon 237].) Gallegos, 229, 481 P.2d 4 Cal.3d 247-249 Cal.Rptr. Gallegos, we To not until could reasonably expect paraphrase for a trial judges necessity enumerating anticipate expressly he would waive by entering specific guilty. Boykin standards, the record it seems to me that
Judged by case and intel- instant discloses defendant voluntarily adequately waived his his to not ligently constitutional rights changed reason of As out defendant was majority, insanity. pointed discussed” the “fully counsel represented consequences counsel, fact would with that such changed including committed had the offenses constitute an admission that he charged, innocence, would defendant of the presumption deprive proof- standard, to a trial. beyond-a-reasonable-doubt jury right mentioned fact that of confrontation was not right the particular immaterial, for assume that de- reasonably the record is thus we can a trial fendant realized that by admitting guilt foregoing issue, he confront his accusers. forfeit his "thereby opportunity
I would affirm the judgments. McComb, J., J.,C. concurred.
Wright,