Opinion ID: 1452188
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Personal entry of guilty plea by defendant.

Text: We have concluded above that in misdemeanor proceedings the state may validly depart from the Boykin-Tahl procedure prescribed for felonies to accommodate a defendant's statutory right to plead guilty through counsel. (6) Past authorities also indicate, moreover, that even when a defendant appears in court personally to plead to a misdemeanor offense, the practicalities of the crowded inferior courts will permit some deviation from the strict felony procedure so long as the constitutional rights of defendants are respected. Thus, for example, in In re Johnson (1965) 62 Cal.2d 325 [42 Cal. Rptr. 228, 398 P.2d 420], discussed above, we indicated our approval of a procedure by which a trial judge, at the outset of the court proceedings, collectively advises all defendants in the courtroom of their constitutional rights, and then prefaces the arraignment of each defendant with an inquiry to ensure that the defendant heard and understood the general statement. (See 62 Cal.2d at pp. 332-333, and fn. 5; Blake v. Municipal Court (1966) 242 Cal. App.2d 731, 733-734 [51 Cal. Rptr. 771].) To provide an adequate record of a defendant's voluntary and knowing waiver of his rights, such collective warnings by the trial court could be supplemented by a written waiver form which a defendant would read and sign, or alternatively, by the traditional stenographic transcript of a defendant's oral waiver of his rights. (See City of Cleveland v. Whipkey (1972) 29 Ohio App.2d 79 [58 Ohio Ops.2d 86, 278 N.E.2d 374, 382].) These suggestions, of course, are merely illustrative and do not exhaust the various acceptable means that courts may devise to promote the efficient administration of justice without impairing constitutional rights. [17] We emphasize, however, that our approval of such alternatives in the misdemeanor context does not imply that similar measures will necessarily satisfy the guidelines established by Tahl and our subsequent decisions for felony prosecutions.