Opinion ID: 1693896
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: assignment of error number twenty-nine

Text: Defendant contends that his California conviction should not have been used to enhance his sentence because he was not properly advised of his rights at the time of the guilty plea according to Boykin v. Alabama, supra. Langendorfer pled guilty in California to two charges, one being: a violation of 220 of the Penal Code in that in the County of Riverside, State of California, you did willfully (sic) and unlawfully make an assault on Gail D. Vasily, a female person not then and there the wife of the said James Langendorfer, with the intent then and there by force and violence to have and accomplish an act of sexual intercourse with and upon the said Gail D. Vasily. Langendorfer and his attorney were advised by the court that his plea bargain did not include any stipulation about punishment. Langendorfer, accompanied by counsel, was then instructed of his rights as follows: THE COURT: ... you have the right to a speedy trial by jury and you have the right to a lawyer at all stages, to be confronted by witnesses against you at your trial. You have the right to present evidence on your behalf in defense of these charges and you have the process of the Court which is available to compel the witnesses to appear on your behalf and you have the privilege against self incrimination. Do you know what the privilege against self incrimination is? THE DEFENDANT: Yes I do. THE COURT: You realize by pleading guilty to each charge you give up the right of a jury trial. THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: You waive your right to a jury trial? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: You realize you are giving up your rights to be confronted by witnesses against you. THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: Do you waive your right to be confronted by witnesses against you? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: You know you have a right to remain silent at the trials that require the prosecution to prove their case against you beyond reasonable doubt? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: You realize you give up that right and admit the commission of the crime charged in each case? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: Do you give that up? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: And you understand what the charge in each case is against you? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: And you realize they are each a felony? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: And you realize in regard to an assault with intent to commit rape you could be committed from one to two years in State's prison? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. Langendorfer testified that he believed his maximum sentence was two years and only learned afterwards that he had been sentenced to from one to twenty years. The two should have been twenty. However, this error, either an inadvertent slip of the tongue by the judge or a failure in transcription, does not invalidate the plea. Langendorfer was advised that he was waiving his privilege against compulsory self-incrimination; the right to trial by jury, and the right to confront his accusers. Langendorfer was represented by counsel and entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily. The requirements of Boykin v. Alabama, supra, were met. There is no merit to this assignment of error.