*1 Dist., Nо. 34504. Second Div. One. Aug. [Crim. 1979.] PEOPLE, THE Plaintiff and v. Respondent, TORRES, RUBEN G. Defendant and Appellant.
Counsel
Walter R. Urban for Defendant and Appellant.
Quin Denver, Defender, Smilowitz, State Public State Jerry Deputy Defender, Public Littlefield, Wilbur F. Public Defender (Los Angeles), Fischer, Dennis A. Allan I. Barnes, H. James Kleinkopf, Deputy Defenders, Public as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appel- lant.
John Lans, Prosecutor, A. Vander Robert R. Assistant City Recknagel, Prosecutor, and Prosecutor, L. City Gerry Ensley, Deputy City Plaintiff and Respondent. General, Philibosian, Robert H. Chief
George Deukmejian, Attorney General, Assistant Moore, S. Clark General, Assistant Attorney Attorney Schwab, Norman H. Sokolow and Howard J. General, Deputy Attorneys John K. Van de District B. Sondheim Kamp, Attorney, Harry Palmer, Pines, M. District Burt George Deputy Attorneys, City Attorney Eskin, C. Chief Assistant Rand (Los Attorney, Angeles), George City Todd, Schrader and S. Thomas as Amici Curiae Deputy City Attorneys, on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.
Opinion THOMPSON, J. This isan from a court conviction appeal based entered Ruben G. Torres to upon charge Code, indecent (Pen. subd. 1). § exposure Having granted certification from a decision of the appellate department superior court which reverses the we consider one narrow issue: the judgment, *4 extent to which the docket entries of the a municipal accepting plea a to misdemeanor in the absence must, of counsel in addition to advice of to counsel and waiver of the recording right intelligent right, also state that the defendant was advised of the and affirmatively dangers of disadvantages self-representation.
We conclude that while in some but not all misdemeanor charges waiver of counsel advice from the court on the record intelligent requires of the of the advice need not be memorialized danger self-representation, entries; in docket counsel, docket advice of to the entry recording right of financed to counsel a defendant who is availability publicly indigent, waiver of the is not deficient. intelligent right fatally Accordingly, and because the of the at bar procedural posture appeal precludes examination of the record the docket we affirm the underlying entry, Torres his to the matter if he wishes judgment, leaving right pursue of in habeas where an record for review way proceedings corpus adequate bemay developed.
Torres with lewd conduct in violation of subdivision of charged Penal Code section 314. At he waived his to counsel arraignment, right and entered a The court sentenced him to six plea guilty. municipal months Docket entries of the court state that county jail. Torres was advised his to counsel at and his other public expense constitutional and that he waived them. The docket also recites rights, trial court that the waiver was finding knowing intelligent.
Torres filed a notice of of settled appeal proceeded by way statement. The statement which Torres engrossed appeal interposed no denominates the issues on as: Torres’ lack (1) objection appeal his precluded
fluency English language intelligent understanding the nature and the of his (2) proceedings consequences plea; trial court to advise that his result in failed Torres plea might deportation and interfere an effort to convert his proceedings alienage Torres was not advised that the conviction from (3) citizenship; resulting offender; his that he as a sex the trial would register plea require court abused its discretion in the maximum sentence. The imposing Torres’ factual statement refutes claims of lack portion engrossed of advice of his to his concerning consequences alienage It contention of does his lack liability deportation. support fluency. court,
In his brief Torres appellate department superior issues recited in the and added statement another preserved engrossed to the effect his waiver of counsel was not a knowing intelligent one. His contention as to issue the added is based lack of advice upon the collateral Torres’ contention that consequences plea. sentence is excessive is not at all. supported by any argument Torres’ contention contained in his appellate department accepted added claim that his waiver of counsel was not an one. That intelligent court concluded that the at docket entries in the case bar are fatally *5 defective for failure to include statement that defendant “was advised of the of Pur- dangers disadvantages self-representation.” certification, suant Court, to rule California Rules of 62(a), we granted thus case to this court. transferring
A
accused of a misdemeanor where
is the
imprisonment
person
is entitled to
as a
v.
counsel
constitutional
punishment
right. (Argersinger
530,
407
Hamlin
U.S. 25
L.Ed.2d
92 S.Ct.
(1972)
1178].)
[32
at the
of the
a
of
is
attaches
where
right
phase
proceedings
plea
guilty
398,
471,
323
entered.
v. Kaiser
U.S.
474-476
L.Ed.
(Williams
(1945)
[89
401-403,
325,
65 S.Ct.
In re Johnson
62 Cal.2d
329
363];
(1965)
[42
228, 398 P.2d
Blake v.
Court
242
420];
(1966)
Cal.Rptr.
Municipal
731, 733-735
sentence
Cal.Rptr.
county
Cal.App.2d
[one-day
jail
[51
771]
on
to
of
a traffic
A
offense].)
defendant
waive his
may
if
to counsel
the waiver
v.
is
one.
right
knowing
intelligent
(People
694,
1
608,
Cal.3d
703
P.2d
464
cert. den.
(1970)
64],
Floyd
Cal.Rptr.
[83
672,
The in the at case bench as charge both serious and qualifies Torres’ to it resulted in his complex. sentenced guilty to six being in months and his to the that he jail being exposed requirement register as a sex offender. The of subdivision 1 of Penal legal Code interpretation section 314 is much narrower than what the would read the very layman statute to re (In Smith Cal.3d 362 proscribe.
If, therefore, the record on of the case at bar appeal compelled conclusion that Torres was not advised of of self- dangers reversal of the representation, record, would be judgment required. 1 The and amici curiae prosecution on its behalf a of fiscal disaster and paint picture administrative chaos unless this court an adopts to the all-encompassing effect principle that a trial court is never at obligated to advise a accused on arraignment person any misdemeanor of the hazards of would such advice if the self-representation. They permit wise, it but never it. arraigning judge thought require aside the Leaving that case law proposition from the United controlling emanating States and California Courts Supreme mandates of that it is in effect an rejection position, to insult court municipal judges. The misdemeanor arraignment is not a for an or for the process job automaperson unskillful it calls the best judge; judicial upon performance. Judges persons arraigning with charged misdemeanors do not recite incantations of from simply constitutional rights a as would a script do not recording. assess a stream They punishment upon people a as would pleading checker total the tab a at supermarket. Arraigning judges court municipal represent contact of the primary with the judicial system public as such the of the exemplars California must work judiciary. They rapidly apply individual treatment individual accuseds the individual’s case from a by separating vast others, mass of it for the moment treating as the most one. in a important Working volume-generated charged atmosphere, must both do arraignment judge justice insure the that it is appearance done. The being deal of talent and job requires great application do it right; much talent and as does the application appellate job judge we who have opinion done both. With life, far fewer than in exceptions most other walks of California have judges conducting exhibited the arraignments talent and necessary high degree have application. with They complied Johnson’s mandate of individualized treatment in waivers of counsel respect cases for it. We see not appropriate slightest reason to their administration of suspect misdemeanor courts will arraignment dissolve into chaos because those continue to judges mandated constitutionally apply principles. is, The fiscal argument aside its similarly misplaced. Setting gloss, argument effect, if with a persons serious or are charged complex misdemeanor advised will not perils countenance, waive counsel. The contention thus asks us to self-representation, they in the name of fiscal which insures that some responsibility, process waivers of counsel will not be It made. would substitute intelligently knowingly incomplete ritualistic incantation for preservation constitutional If fact therе rights. *7 law, is an increased call upon the fisc from the is unavoidable. It also public it following seems all or in recoupable, substantial the of a part, by in California adoption to the management which has technique directly applicable arraignment process proved Eliot, (See successful in Arizona. The Video in Criminal Justice: Phoenix Telephone (1978) 721.) 55 Project U.Det.J.Urb.L.
21 The case reached the however, does not that conclusion. compel statement. Rule California 184(a), courts reviewing engrossed upon Court, of which to the Rules appellate department, governs appeals that if the condensed statement submitted the appellant provides of an to first statement the purports step preparation engrossed of the the shall state the cover oral portion appellant only proceedings, be from to be raised on and shall points appeal prеsenting any precluded him. Here not embraced within the stated reversal grounds points the factual material is While the statement covering engrossed sketchy. it, it on enunciated within makes no involved in the “points appeal” counsel. While related to waiver of to trial court reference proceedings statement, we must Torres’ condensed not include the record does statement, that the assume, failure to of his engrossed light object is correct. latter’s recitation of the “points appeal” the Hence, the docket entries of the failure of unless arraigning advised of the of recite Torres was court that perils based his fatal of conviction is upon self-representation judgment Our be affirmed. controlling guilty, judgment analysis law leads that absence the docket case us to conclusion entry not fatal. trial
Counsel for the and for both to a Torres refer prosecution admonition of as a dangers self-representation disadvantages In the admonition is the “Faretta” their warning. assumption court, creation of the Faretta the lead of at least one follow they California 572 decision. v. 71 (1977) (People Lopez Cal.App.3d [138 cases, Faretta As we read the inaccurate. 36].) assumption v. declared U.S. 806 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. [45 2525] California one new criminal case is a defendant in a only principle—that guaranteed so that a the United States Constitution right self-representation by of that cannot forced him. lawyer upon explaining quantum the obverse waiver of and its relation to intelligent right subject need did a defendant counsel, the Faretta court “Although say: in order skill and of a not himself have the competent lawyer experience be made he should to choose self-representation, ly intelligently so that the aware of the disadvantages self-representation, dangers his choice is he is will that ‘he knows what record establish doing ” 581-582].) L.Ed.2d at U.S. at made with (422 p. pp. eyes open.’ a defend The Faretta court’s requirement acknowledgement the perils information ant must be sufficient concerning possessed Faretta, new to that course when he elects self-representation *8 22
however. It dates at least from Adams v.
ex rel.
317
U.S.
McCann (1942)
269,
236,
268, 274-275,
U.S.
63
143
279
L.Ed.
S.Ct.
A.L.R.
We
435],
[87
thus view the
law
the nature of the record to
controlling
concerning
of a
the
defendant’s waiver of counsel
as
which has
support
validity
the 27
since Adams.
revival of
Faretta’s
the Adams
developed
years
standard for
waiver
counsel has
intelligent
emphasized
inappro
aof mini-bar examination
test
to waive
priateness
capacity
716,
counsel
v. Shields
232
(see
722
(1965)
People
Cal.App.2d
[43
188]), but it has not
the law
the manner in
Cal.Rptr.
changed
governing
which
waiver
in the
record.
process
intelligent
appear
That law does not
that the Adams admonition
require
appeаr
docket. It
be memorialized at
in the record of
may
any place
(In
Johnson,
325,
re
62 Cal.2d
In
331.)
an
proceedings.
supra,
as in habeas
the record
appropriate
be
procedural posture,
corpus,
may
Johnson,
extraneous evidence of
(In
what
amplified
occurred.
re
by
supra,
325,
62
331;
Cal.2d
see
also
re
606,
Cal.2d
(1967)
Smiley
[58
579, 427 P.2d
but cf. In re
179];
Cal.Rptr.
Cal.3d
Hochberg
876-879
Here, because the has appeal proceeded engrossed statement in which the issue waiver is of counsel not one of intelligent those we are unaware of nature of preserved appeal, proceedings in the trial court sufficient docket that Torres facially supporting entry counsel, was advised needed, of his at if that he public expense waived that and that the waiver was right, knowing intelligent. Torres, as us a record appellant, obligated supply adequate to decide the issues raised him toor such a record cannot explain why be He has done neither. Efforts of both Torres and the supplied. fill in the record declarations are prosecution gap unavailing. and, That documentation is the record while it beyond may cognizable in a in habeas it the record subsequent proceeding corpus, part on appeal.
Torres’ other hence contentions refuted we unsupported, being conclude that because of the nature of the record the must be judgment affirmed. we carte Lest establish which gives long standing principle blanche to deviations from rules governing appeals, procedural
23 writ, his left with Torres by extraordinary procedure remedy not now before us. which is is affirmed.
The judgment
Lillie, J., P. concurred. Acting the in HANSON, J. I concur the affirming majority’s judgment However, I arrive at that conclu Torres. would conviction of defendant route; treat within as a writ sion a different I would elect to the appeal by of the which has bеen habeas and address issue corpus directly key curiae. briefed the and amici by argued parties completely of the case affirms the in instant The judgment majority opinion as the on in a similar fashion conviction majority procedural grounds 23 Cal.3d of v. did in the Court case People Pope opinion Supreme P.2d the dissenting Pope opinion 859]. Newman, the Mosk, Clark and Justice concurred in Justices expressed the as to the in the view that discussion opinion appropriate majority counsel dictum of trial claims standard incompetence resolving I the case at bench construe no effect. in has Similarly binding in the that “the admonition statement perils majority opinion must be and the discussion given” supporting self-representation However, I since as dicta and not conclusion gratuitous binding. merely dicta, I feel document in material compelled disagree part conclusion. another line reasоning opposite supporting Torres defendant Ruben G. As indicated in the majority opinion at the time (hereinafter defendant) pleaded guilty in in a his parts public place arraignment lewdly exposing private violation of Penal Code section subdivision 1 314.1).1 (hereinafter § He appellate superior subsequently appealed department court. court in a published opinion superior department appellate to the trial court of conviction with directions
reversed
judgment
did
on
that the record
set aside
ground
appeal
guilty
willfully
1 Section 314
as follows:
who
“Every person
provides
pertinent part
thereof,
in any
. .
his
or
parts
.:
. . .
lewdly.
Exposes
person,
private
[¶]
or
to be
are
other
offended
where there
present
public place,
any place
persons
a misdemeanor.
. . .”
...
thereby
annoyed
show
waiver of
in that
counsel
knowing, intelligent
voluntary
the “record must
that the defendant
show
was advised of
dangers
v.
Faretta
Cali-
disadvantages
self-representation” citing
authority
*10
This Court, court to rule California Rules of 7(a), pursuant permitted the and amici the curiae listed in of the the parties caption2 majority brief and the issue as to opinion completely argue orally controlling whether or in a situation in the typical plea-of-guilty municipal where the follows on the heels of and plea immediately arraignment where the counsel, defendant is not an of advisement the represented by and of be must made the court and dangers pitfalls self-representation be shown in the record.
Stated I another the issue as it is or not the whether way key perceive record of of to a the in misdemeanor at arraignment stage the court must show Faretta of the and muniсipal type warning dangers as, of an or as disadvantages self-representation requirement independent an of of a part integral showing “knowing, intelligent voluntary waiver of counsel” OR whether not the on the record of a showing counsel,” here, waiver of as “knowing, intelligent voluntary present ineffectual absent also a on the record that a Faretta showing type warning given.
It that the to this action in their that no briefs appears parties agree such was in fact the court below. of the warning given by Amplification record with “extraneous evidence of what of occurred” declara- by way tions which in a in habeas “may cognizable subsequent proceeding would add the There is as a issue. corpus” nothing clarify key practical matter no other “record docket to that issue. underlying entry” we since have before in us this the essence Accordingly, appeal same record which some other сourt down the road would have in the same if issue raised the defendant addressing key seeking writ, as interest extraordinary suggested by opinion, majority time, conservation of effort and funds and to the efficient public promote counsel, 2 In addition to the office Beach and defense city prosecutor’s Long officials of the before filed amici curiae briefs and public argued orally following agencies this court: County, Los District of Los City Attorney Angeles, Attorney Angeles California, General of State of Los County the Public Defender Attorney Angeles State Public Defender. criminal matters on review we appellate handling expeditious view, Gordian knot here and treat the within should, cut the appeal my of habeas as a writ corpus. above, that there is I conclude described issue addressing key that the no judges handling authority requiring
presently those defendants warn all or any calendars must court arraignment at time to a misdеmeanor arraignment who wish charge plead guilty and that such warning self-representation pitfalls dangers Moreover, of a in the absence on the record. be shown persuasive case, I do in this and none has been to the presented contrary, showing *11 of our overburdened not believe that the further already burdening declared rule of criminal courts with procedure judicially be in calendar would such a the arraignment judges requiring warning by interest of the maintenance of an efficient and economical best system of criminal follows: justice. My reasoning
The Record in the Case at Bench than that in the instant case
A detailed recitation of the more record warranted. included majority opinion appears 6, 1978, docket dated June
The court specifically pertaining section herein shows he as defendant violating charged, pleaded guilty, 314.1 statements: and also contains following
“Deft, Court, the after waived to counsel by inquiry expressly right found that such waiver understandingly Court knowingly, made. intelligently in court without counsel for
“Defendant/s Complaint arraignment. counsel; time to to-wit: informed read and defendant/s legal rights, if without that the court will counsel counsel and charges appoint procure one; witnesses; reasonable afford for defendant is unable to process or of offense bail; trial district time jury by judge public plead; dismissal; for time otherwise 45 within 30 if in custody, days, days waive/s sentence; under 1203.4A P.C. defendant/s dismissal expressly and all of accusers counsel, trial, to confrontation to a jury court, the After witnesses, and self-incrimination. inquiry against court finds that such waivers are knowingly, understandingly, intelligent- made. The court further finds that the defendant/s ly, voluntarily understand/s nature of the him and the conse- against charge/s of his quences guilty plea.
“Defendant/s enter/s time for waive/s plea/s charged sentence. of defendant to file for
“Request aрplication probation granted. Sentence and set 7-18 for 1978. . . .” hearing probation court docket dated shows the entries: July following “Defendant in court and been for having duly arraigned judgment there no cause should it being legal why judgment pronounced, and ordered the court as a said adjudged punishment offense of 314.1 P C the defendant sentenced to serve 6 months in Los *12 Angeles County.”
The 16, Statement 1978, dated “Engrossed Appeal” September certified as true and correct and who T. signed Eugene by Judge Long 6, the 1978, contains, at on June presided arraignment proceedings other the under statements the amongst things, following heading “Procedural Facts”: 21, 1977,
“On a was filed that Ruben September complaint alleging Torres violated Penal Code Section 314.1. 6,
“Defendant was on June An 1978. was arraigned interpreter present all at times. Defendant was advised his have counsel and if he right counsel, could not afford one would be Defendant waived his appointed. to counsel. Defendant was also advised his status as an concerning alien in conformance with Penal Code 1016.5. Defendant was advised § of his constitutional he would be rights; required register 290; under Code Penal as enumerated in the docket. Defendant § entered a Probation was case the was guilty. requested 18, continued to for 1978 July sentencing. 18, 1978,
“On case the was called for An July sentencing. interpreter Once the court advised Defendant present. again pursuant
27 months to serve six (6) was sentenced Code Defendant Penal §1065.5. the county jail.” a record does contain transcript proceedings reporter’s court “In a none is California reporter
but felony proceedings required. defendant, or an the district if must be attorney, present requested by Proc., However, in misdemeanor Civ. 269.) § order of Court. (Code ordered is not unless a court required reporter here] proceedings [as of an official Proc., Code Civ. 274c.) § сourt. (See presence [‘T]he court in a criminal [as here] proceeding reporter v. thereof.’ discretion (Hidalgo judge dependent upon 244, 246 P.2d . 36].) . . 129 Court Cal.App.2d [277 Municipal supra, method to the use of California alternative reporter’s provides means a review of misdemeanor trial as a of affording transcript Court, 184, rules of a settled statement. Rules of use (Cal. through 275, v. Goudeau 279-280 187.)” (People Cal.App.3d [87 22, den. for 424], 1970.) ptn. hg. July Progeny Requires
Neither Faretta nor Its California Such Warning Stage at the Procedural the Instant Case and counsel amici Defendant curiae of their support argument show warned record must that defendant was of the dangers to the in Faretta v. point disadvantages self-representation language L.Ed.2d which 581-582], U.S. California, supra, defense, states that: “When an his own he accused manages relinquishes, matter, associated as a factual traditional benefits purely many *13 reason, himself, to For in order to counsel. this represent right those accused must and relinquished ‘knowingly intelligently’ forgo S., Zerbst, 464-465. Von Moltke v. v. 304 U. at Cf. benefits. Johnson Gillies, 708, Black, 332 a J.). S. 723-724 U. Although (plurality opinion a and defendant need not himself have skill lawyer experience he order and to choose self-representation, competently intelligently aware self- should made dangers disadvantages that knows what he is so that the record will establish ‘he representation, Adams v. United States ex his choice made doing eyes open.’ McCann, U.S., rel. 317 at 279.” conclude,
I after a careful of the entire Faretta opinion, reading neither it or of its nor other California case California any any progeny to a defendant who law known me requires personally presently wishes to at time of in the arraignment municipal plead guilty 28
be warned the court of the of self- by dangers disadvantages or that such must be shown the record. representation warning The Faretta сase is from the case at bench clearly distinguishable reason the issues and its As indicated in presented procedural posture. the Faretta court set forth the sole issue before it at majority opinion, 807 at L.Ed.2d when it said: “The before us page page question [45 566] now is a whether defendant in a state criminal has trial a constitutional without counsel when he proceed voluntarily intelligently elects to do so. Stated another is whether a state way, question may hale a into its criminal courts and there constitutionally person force him, even when he he insists that wants to conduct his own lawyer upon (Italics added.) defense.” Faretta, case,
In the unlike court did not present municipal try “force a defendant Torres. In Faretta the defendant lawyer” upon not to a was faced with a full blown trial and pleaded felony charge, had initiated to the court to himself the course request represent during bench, Faretta, the trial. the case at unlike defendant Torres trial, faced with an criminal did not enter “not adversary guilty” plea intend defend himself and did not initiate a to represent request himself to, but he did, wanted contrary merely plead “guilty” to a misdemeanor at time of in the court. charge arraignment
Moreover, of
is the fact that the
particular significance
language
Faretta case
to the advisement of “the
and disadvan
pertaining
dangers
so that
the record will establish that ‘he
tages
self-representation,
”
knows what he is
and his choice is made with
doing
eyes open’
really
new. As noted in the
the Faretta court cites as
nothing
majority opinion,
for that
Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann (1942)
authority
language
268,
317
63
U.S. 269
L.Ed.
The State Public Defender in its amici curiae brief this court urges hold that even defendant is not faced with an criminal though adversary trial that kind of a some warning dangers self-representation by
29 the court is even if a defendant desires required plead arguing guilty, matters, that a at that advise the defendant such lawyer stage might as the “diversion” out of possibility system, example, possible defenses, and and “technical” affirmative of a possibility “negotiated It is that this court should take v. plea.” urged Boykin-Tahl (Boykin Alabama, 238; Tahl, 395 In re 1 Cal.3d one U.S. 122) supra, step supra, further and that a Faretta be require type warning given by municipal court at at the the case bench to advise judges procedural stage 71 defendant lines in v. (1977) Lopez along suggested People 568 Dale 78 36], v. (1978) People Cal.App.3d Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. [138 722 87 and v. Cervantes 281 338], Cal.Rptr. People Cal.App.3d [144 it the alternative was in briefs and at oral Cal.Rptr. urged [150 819]. even if that the court informed the defendant that his argument only “unwise,” without the advice counsel is at decision it would plead least be not which something, suggested Boykin-Tahl, might prompt the defendant into that he had to an best before thinking speak attorney a guilty entering plea. Faretta, Dale, and other cases
The Cervantes construing Lopez, 706 v. Fabricant (1979) Cal.Rptr. Cal.App.3d including People [154 all all since in the are 340], cited distinguishable majority opinion, Each of the involved proceedings. nonplea stage post-arraignment, not to a does above cases Faretta recognizes apply implicitly in terms here discusses Faretta situation because each present of a at a or other defendant himself trial adversary post-plea defending hearing. dicta in the to this
The issue pertaining primarily majority opinion of In re Cal.2d on its construction Johnson (1965) relying statement that “In the situation serious includes the 228], offenses, the admonition self-representation complex perils the case at bench as both serious “the qualifies given,” charge its I have but do so construe no Johnson complex.” quarrel Johnson held that “there nothing merely holding. made an
record which intimates he thereby remotely [defendant] to counsel” waiver of constitutional his right understanding intelligent waiver from a silent italics) at (62 Cal.2d presuming p. original Johnson, the Here, unlike the situation in factual record is impermissible. Torres made whether or not defendant not silent record is respect docket of counsel. The court waiver voluntary intelligent knowing, waived to counsel 6, 1978, “Deft. dated June states: expressly clearly *15 Court, after the Court found that such waiver was by inquiry and made.” knowingly, understandingly intelligently the Johnson court does discuss crowded calen- Although arraignment dars and that those misdemeanor which are charges complex care serious more should be taken a before waiver counsel to accepting waiver, insure that it was an there is no intelligent understanding whatsoever which Johnson courts warn to language requires municipal the defendant of the and record such a perils self-representation a before at time of warning taking guilty arraignment.
Since such a not one which is warning clearly constitutionally and in the absence clear to the I compelled judicial precedent contrary, no reason to further smother and slow down our perceive compelling courts with another declared rule of criminal municipal judicially which court would our procedure require municipal taking judges a misdemeanor at time of to such I give guilty pleas arraignment warning. would decline to a would leave such a such impose requirement state determination to the Court. Supreme
I no means a intend that such should never be imply warning I with the statement in footnote given. agree majority opinion that “the misdemeanor is not a automa- arraignment process job or for the unskillful “calls the best of person judge,” upon judicial I do not assume that our court performance.” municipal arraignment are or unskillful. have the nature of each judges stupid They charge other factors at their and are vested with inherent fingertips powers a such on a if case case basis deem it or advisable give warning they However, no there is whatsoever either appropriate. showing generally in the case at bench from specifically departure present procedures to make such a either as a blanket or as to warning mandatory warning would inbe the best interest of our criminal any specific type charge justice system. view, routine, uniform, blanket such my giving warning but would be unworkable in only
clearly unnecessary handling mass in our calendars courts. Those who arraignment persons courts are first plead required jammed given arraignment include, case, advisements which as in the instant their Boykin-Tahl “counsel,” time to counsel and that the will rights legal procure counsel without if defendant is unable afford one. charge appoint are, Thus, bench, as was defendant in the case at Torres they clearly *16 of counsel before of free entering to the alerted legal availability guilty. counsel at of the public a clear availability Such pronouncement offree Coupled be bench that it would the with a blanket warning
expense from has a aid counsel without the to “unwise” plead guilty proceed of courts on California’s havoc arraignment wreaking potential The disastrous A.) volume of cases. (See of the sheer reason appen. entire criminal the of such a justicе domino effect upon requirement itself,4 if “human nature” for repeats quest “perfection,”3 system box. of Faretta’s Pandora’s let another demon out could Adverse Macklin in his book The Price of Perfect Justice—The 3 Justice Fleming 1974) (Basic on the American Courtroom Books Current Doctrine Legal Consequences in “The Ideal stated: the entitled chapter Perfectibility” is the ideal of the modern theoretical legal engine perfectibil “The fuel powers time, and that with the of sufficient expenditure patience, energy, concept ity—the For the it is to achieve in all legal process. past money possible eventually perfect justice ideal been this ideal has dominated and the has legal widely twenty years thought, action. Yet a look at almost area of the process translated into legal any specific judicial can noble ideal has results that only will disclose that the consistently sрawned (P. 3.) described as . . .” pandemoniac. “The to the of a man who in is procedure comparable experience quest perfection and a tire too for the tube. Just as he gets blows inner tube tries to stuff it into small up In our of the one side in out the other. pursuit will-o’-the-wisp place, pops effective the we other elements of an neglect procedure, notably perfectibility, necessarily time, cost, reasonable resolution of controversies within a reasonable at a reasonable and under settled rules law. uniformity, we which too much “And here confirm observation that a system attempts Macaulay’s achieves too little. For when we aim at we impair capacity perfect procedure, created, is, order to achieve for which it to settle the basic values legal disputes weak, to restrain the and to conform the strong, promptly peaceably, рrotect conduct of all to settled If criminal unable to convict rules law. is procedure promptly them, innocent of accusations acquit specific against promptly results, and to do it in a manner that confidence in the of its retains public accuracy lost, deterrent effect of retribution swift certain is punishment feeling just 6.) (P. declines. . . .” belief in the of justice disappears, efficacy system “But, that in a case no sacrifice is too to assure given perfectionists argue, great life, will be done. the sacrifice of the order itself and of the perfect justice Ignored legal 9.) (P. order . . .” of those that the liberty, property legal designated protect. are Indigents 4 California has an factor to look to of analogy. experience by way devoid of incentive where defendants nonindigent afforded free appeals monetary or not to retain counsel at personal such incentives whether deciding weigh monetary expense. as from distinguished public that “human nature” will not itself repeat experienced There is no reason to believe number of frivolous which are “flooded” with a totally our courts appellate large (See v. 93 Cal.App.3d felony appeals. People Wong indigent 453], J., Files, J., conc.) P. . . “the fiscal is . argument footnote 1 states that in its opinion majority in his opinion I Justice Gordon L. Files concurring concur with Presiding misplaced.” is a significant “the economic cost litigation when he stated at 155 that Wong page we it.” Nor should should not be reluctant to discuss in our and we justice factor system *17 The Other Issues
The majority defendant’s opinion summarily disposes remaining contentions refuted or I but being feel some unsupported. agree is warranted. amplification contention,
Defendant’s counsel, that he is fluent in through Spanish and lacks the only that it is requisite fluency English “unlikely” that he understood what is not the record. The transpired supported by Statement on “Engrossed shows that an was Appeal” interpreter present at all 6, 1978, times on June at the time of and on plea July at time of The trial court believed an sentencing. apparently interpreter its with defendant since the record unnecessary during colloquy silent as to the use of an Defendant did not at time in the interpreter. any trial court seek to withdraw his based on the that he did not premises understand no indication in There the record that the court English. below concluded that defendant was fluent in and did not only Spanish understand The does not reflect an English. probation report English be reluctant to consider and additional which weigh be caused in problems may handling criminal matters created by piling judicially procedural after safeguard procedural in the search for safeguard which “perfection” tends to foster loss of confidence in public our criminal justice systеm. is, be, The of our criminal primary purpose or should justice a search for the system truth directed at a determination of the or innocence guilt of the accused. The system should also be conducted in an efficient and economical manner. In accordance with the a sound foregoing, should be public and not policy encourage discourage pleas guilty by guilty. In view of the there foregoing, be an alternative appears faster and more simpler, economical for a to handle way at judge time of guilty pleas arraignment to those which be classified charges as “serious and may than that indicated in complex” either the dicta herein opinion or majority Johnson case. The judge, a defendant’s waiver of following his constitutional and before rights accepting could have plea, defendant under merely oath and placed in a brief engage colloquy with defendant from the bench directly defendant’s conduct relative to the concerning offense(s).* charged If the is satisfied after a brief judge with defendant of his colloquy of the offense guilt the court charged, In most accepts cases this method should plea. short circuit the defense necessity counsel into the injecting case at this and thus stage avoid both and waste of unnecessary delay funds for private public assistance. legal In the event the court is not satisfied from defendant’s statements as to his or her guilt offense, charged court can then the matter over for a short put period urge defendants to consult nonindigent counsel and private refer defendants to a indigent defender for public consultation. * Such a Mrs.-, could start in colloquy this matter: THE COURT: Mr. you have been with violation of Penal Code charged section-. The Court understands that wish to you that Is that plead guilty correct? DEFENDANT: Yes. THE charge. Tell COURT: the Court own words what did to briefly violate that section of your you the Penal Code. had from shows defendant come Mexico language problem the United States in and has here for 13 Nor resided can years.
absence of a a basis for this contention since reporter’s transcript supply use of law that the a settled statement on as in the appeal, provides case, instant be used in lieu of such a (See may transcript. infra.) defendant, additional contention alien who had illegal *18 Mexico, been not to advised of the previously deported consequences in his to to achieve or plea respect possible attempts citizenship sex as a offender deportation possible registration supported by the record. the docket advisements, does not reflect such Although Statement on that such reflects advisements in “Engrossed were Appeal” Moreover, fact no such advisements were given. assuming, arguendo, errors call for reversal if given,-such to “only [they prejudicial are] re accused.” (In 315, 781, Ronald E. 19 Cal.3d (1977) 321 Cal.Rptr. [137 562 684].) P.2d There been has no that defendant was either showing aas direct result his in the instant case that he was deported to errors, as a sex offender. The if were therefore required register any, not prejudicial. the court did not abuse its discretion in defendant.
Finally,
sentencing
The record in the instant case
the trial court file reflects that
including
8, 1977,
defendant on
drove
his vehicle
a female and
August
up
consent;
his erect
her
without her
and that the victim
exposed
penis
obtained defendant’s vehicle license number and
identified
positively
him
from
series of
mentions
photographs.
probation report
defendant’s
for the
conviction
same offense and his
incarceration
prior
30
that
offense
recommended “at least 60
days
jail
days”
jail.
The court’s decision to
and sentence defendant Torres
deny probation
maximum is
within its discretion.
v. Giminez
statutory
clearly
(People
68
577,
14 Cal.3d
Accordingly, by foregoing judgment conviction. A
Appendix The 1979 Annual of the Judicial Council of California to the Report Governor and the the Administrative Office Legislature prepared by 1, the California Courts throws (Jan. 1979) light magnitude calendar 13, case loads in California’s 90 14 courts. municipal Figures 96, and 15 at 97 and 98 which illustrate the large pages graphically 34 entered courts statewide municipal
percentage guilty pleas 1, 3, are attached as inclosures under present procedures respectively.
An of inclosures and reflects fiscal 1977-1978 analysis during year 23,280 courts to felonies persons pleaded guilty those which were reduced to misdemeanors Penal including through Code section 737,414 subdivision (b)(5); persons pleaded guilty nontraffic and traffic misdemeanors which included such charges Code, (Pen. 242), Code, § battery (Pen. disturbing 415), § peace Code, conduct (Pen. Code, 647), § disorderly (Pen. 499b), § joy riding Code, (Pen. violаtion of trespass 602), § various city county ordinances intoxication and violations, fish and hit and including game run, drunk reckless under the driving, driving injuries driving influence of and other misdemeanor violations drugs to the pertaining 655,956 vehicles. Another operation to non- persons pleaded guilty *19 traffic and traffic infractions which include such charges speeding, vehicles, of motor improper operation faulty equipment improper registration.
It is 183,555 note that misdemeanors, 2,766,696 interesting nontraffic and traffic 7,043,962 infractions and tickets were illegal parking disposed bail which, forfeiture in certain instances Vehicle Code involving violations, are “considered to a for most equivalent (Judicial Cal., Council of Annual purposes” other 95) Rep., supra, p. than offenses to the unlawful of vehicles. Veh. relating (See parking Code, 13103.) §
Petitions for a were Hanson, denied J., 1979. rehearing September ofwas that the should be opinion petitions granted. petitions both for a Court were denied October parties hearing by Supreme 1979.