Opinion ID: 494679
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidence Relating to the State Court Proceedings

Text: 8 Tallmadge appeared for sentencing on February 6, 1979 following his conviction for possession of a machine gun. The state trial judge stayed the imposition of sentence and placed the defendant on probation for three years. At this hearing, the prosecutor made the following statement to the court in Tallmadge's presence in discussing the terms of probation: 9 I would like it explicitly made known to the defendant at this time as to the firearms that it refers to any kind of firearms, whether they be rifles, shotguns, handguns, ammunition, incendiary devices and explosives. 10 The state trial judge acquiesced. Later in the proceedings the state trial judge told Tallmadge that as a condition of his probation he could not own, use or possess any dangerous or deadly weapons. (Emphasis added). 11 On January 4, 1982, Tallmadge requested that the Probation Officer of Los Angeles County recommend to the state trial court that it should dismiss the pending criminal proceedings against him pursuant to Cal. Penal Code section 1203.4 (West Supp.1987) because he had complied with all the conditions of probation. The Probation Office advised the state trial court that Tallmadge had complied with all conditions of probation and was deserving of having his offense fixed as a misdemeanor. A probation termination hearing was held on January 26, 1982 before the same state trial judge who had originally suspended proceedings in the matter three years earlier. 12 The prosecutor argued that probation should be terminated but objected to the reduction of the offense to a misdemeanor. The trial judge observed that because Tallmadge's conduct while on probation was exemplary the court would apply the maxim 'to err is human and to forgive is divine'  and reduce the offense to a misdemeanor under Cal. Penal Code Sec. 17 (West Supp.1987). 13 The state prosecutor then made the following comments: 14 One other thing, your Honor. May I address the Court? There is one other thing. According to the regulation in 1203.4, it says that the order of reduction shall state and the probationer shall be informed that the order does not relieve him of the obligation to disclose the conviction in response to any direct question contained in any questionnaire or application for public office or for licensure by any state or local agency. 15 Dismissal of an accusation or information pursuant to this section does not permit a person to own, possess, or have in his custody or control any firearm capable of being concealed upon the person or prevent his conviction under Section 12021. 16 The trial judge then asked Tallmadge if he understood. Tallmadge replied, Yes, sir. Thereafter, the state trial judge signed an order reducing the offense to a misdemeanor pursuant to Cal. Penal Code Sec. 17 and terminating probation pursuant to Cal. Penal Code Sec. 1203.4. In addition, the state trial court ordered that Tallmadge's conviction be set aside, that a plea of not guilty be entered, and that case was dismissed pursuant to Cal. Penal Code Sec. 1203.4. 17 It is clear from the reporter's transcript of these state court proceedings that Tallmadge was ordered by the court not to carry any firearm while on probation. The record also discloses that three years later Tallmadge was told by the court, at the suggestion of the prosecutor, that he could not carry a concealable firearm under California law, notwithstanding the termination of his probation and the dismissal of the state charges. No statement was made to the defendant concerning his right to carry a nonconcealable weapon under federal law. It is also noteworthy that the state trial judge did not explain to Tallmadge the legal effect of the reduction of the charge of possession of a machine gun to a misdemeanor for all purposes under Cal. Penal Code Sec. 17(b)(3). 18 After his probation was terminated, Tallmadge's attorney told him there was no problem owning a nonconcealable gun. 19