Opinion ID: 2633370
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Appointment of Drs. Burdick, Criswell, Cutting and Matychowiak Was Unlawful

Text: Defendant contends the trial court's appointment of Drs. Burdick, Criswell, Cutting and Matychowiak to examine him for the sanity phase was improper because he never personally pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. He also claims he was never informed of the rights he was waiving by so pleading. As a result, he claims, the sanity phase was a nullity. He argues that holding the allegedly unauthorized sanity phase prejudiced him by permitting the jury to hear testimony from the four expert witnesses that could later be used as aggravating evidence at the penalty phase. He thus claims we must reverse the penalty judgment as well as the sanity judgment. We disagree with the premise of this claim because the record shows defendant personally entered a valid insanity plea. Although defendant is correct that a criminal defendant must enter a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity personally and in open court (§§ 1018, 1016; People v. Gauze (1975) 15 Cal.3d 709, 717, 125 Cal.Rptr. 773, 542 P.2d 1365; People v. Gaines (1962) 58 Cal.2d 630, 636, 25 Cal. Rptr. 448, 375 P.2d 296, disapproved on another point by People v. Morse (1964) 60 Cal.2d 631, 36 Cal.Rptr. 201, 388 P.2d 33; People v. Vanley (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 846, 854-855, 116 Cal.Rptr. 446), the record reveals that defendant did so. [22] On April 13, 1984, defense counsel informed the court defendant wished to enter an additional plea. The following then occurred: BY THE COURT: Q Mr. Weaver, the second count of Information No. 24387 charges you with the crime of a violation of Section 187 of the Penal Code which is murder. How do you plead to that charge? THE COURT: Do you want to add an additional plea? MR. HUFFMAN: Add an additional plea of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. BY THE COURT: Q Is that correct, Mr. Weaver?  A Yes (Italics added.) Defendant's verbal assent to the court's questioning, done in open court, was sufficient to satisfy section 1018's requirement that a defendant personally enter his plea. (See People v. Reeves (1966) 64 Cal.2d 766, 772, 51 Cal.Rptr. 691, 415 P.2d 35 [Although the words of the plea were spoken by defense counsel, the trial judge questioned defendant personally in open court and defendant voiced his concurrence therein. This is sufficient compliance with the requirement of Penal Code section 1018 that `every plea must be put in by the defendant himself in open court'].) Because defendant personally entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity to the charge of Levoy's murder, [23] we reject defendant's claim the appointment of experts to examine him was invalid. We also reject defendant's subsidiary claim that he was not advised of his Boykin-Tahl [24] rights when he entered his plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. Had defendant entered the solitary plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, he would have thereby admitted] the commission of the offense charged (§ 1016), requiring the court to have advised him of his Boykin-Tahl rights before allowing him to so plead. ( People v. Rizer (1971) 5 Cal.3d 35, 36, 95 Cal.Rptr. 23, 484 P.2d 1367; People v. Snow (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 950, 960, fn. 5,140 Cal.Rptr. 427, disapproved on another point, People v. Wetmore (1978) 22 Cal.3d 318, 323-324 & fn. 5, 149 Cal.Rptr. 265, 583 P.2d 1308.) This rule does not apply to defendant because he pleaded both not guilty by reason of insanity and not guilty. Because he did not admit any element of the charged crimes and was not giving up any rights, there was no need to advise him of those rights. Moreover, the record here shows counsel waived defendant's right to have the trial court advise him of his rights and later waived readvisement of defendant's constitutional and statutory rights at a hearing in which the information was amended. In sum, we find the trial court did not trench upon any state or federal constitutional or statutory right of defendant when it appointed Drs. Burdick, Criswell, Cutting and Matychowiak to examine defendant for the sanity phase. There being no error, we need not address defendant's further claims that the unauthorized appointment and testimony of the four doctors denied him fundamental fairness at the penalty phase, and that defense counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to object to the appointment of, and testimony of, the four doctors.