Opinion ID: 1129010
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Counsel at Trial [9]

Text: (16) The Solano County Superior Court found that petitioner had a crucial defense [diminished capacity] available which was not presented on his behalf. The diminished capacity concept, commonly known as the Wells-Gorshen rule (see People v. Morse, 70 Cal.2d 711, 731 [76 Cal. Rptr. 391, 452 P.2d 607]), was first fully recognized in People v. Wells, 33 Cal.2d 330 [202 P.2d 53], which was filed in 1949. (See People v. Hoxie, 252 Cal. App.2d 901, 911 [61 Cal. Rptr. 37]; People v. Williams, 200 Cal. App.2d 838, 841-842 [19 Cal. Rptr. 743]; 14 Stan.L.Rev. 59, 73-74.) Since peititioner's trial ended in 1947 his counsel at trial manifestly cannot be regarded as constitutionally inadequate for any failure to anticipate the rule subsequently established in Wells. The Solano County Superior Court also made certain findings relating to petitioner's claim of ineffective counsel at trial, but the findings are not supported by the record. [10] The facts found were alleged in the habeas corpus petition but were not admitted by the People or proven by evidence. The Solano County Superior Court further found petitioner saw his attorney no more than 40 minutes in all before the trial, 25 minutes of which were consumed in court appearances. There was only 5 minutes of private consultation. The court presumably based this finding on a similar allegation in the petition. However, that allegation is deemed denied. ( In re Saunders, 2 Cal.3d 1033, 1047-1048 [88 Cal. Rptr. 633, 472 P.2d 921].) (17) The only evidence on the matter presented at the hearing was petitioner's own testimony. When asked how often and for how long he met with his attorney before trial, petitioner replied I recall two times that he saw me for about five minutes a piece, it seemed, and just before the trial I think he saw me in the anteroom in the court. (Italics added.) Petitioner further testified that before the trial his attorney's secretary interviewed him for about 10 minutes. Since over 20 years had elapsed since the trial and during that period petitioner underwent electric shock treatments, which cause amnesia, the foregoing evidence does not constitute substantial proof that the attorney saw petitioner only for the limited times testified to by petitioner. (18) In addition the petition pointed to defense counsel's failure to seek a hearing on petitioner's competence at the time of trial and to object to the admission of petitioner's incriminating statements, and the petition alleged that defense counsel failed to argue against the death penalty. With respect to the latter matter, it is unclear from the record whether the allegation is correct, but assuming that it is, it does not establish that petitioner had constitutionally inadequate counsel at trial. Nor do the other foregoing asserted failures so establish. A request for a hearing on competence was unnecessary. ( In re Davis, 8 Cal.3d 798, 808 [106 Cal. Rptr. 178, 505 P.2d 1018]; People v. Westbrook, 62 Cal.2d 197, 203 [41 Cal. Rptr. 809, 397 P.2d 545]; People v. Ah Ying, 42 Cal. 18, 21.) Other matters alleged in the petition regarding petitioner's trial counsel either were not proven or do not establish that petitioner had constitutionally inadequate counsel at trial.