Court Opinion

ID: 9450284
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:41:18.719171+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:14.452920
License: Public Domain

HAMLIN, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
The record of the Superior Court of the State of California concerning which the majority opinion states “We do not understand appellant to challenge the factual recitals in the state court records”, establishes that on June 16, 1954, in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Trinity, appellant was informed by the judge of his right to counsel at all stages of the proceedings against him, that he waived that right and expressed a desire to proceed at that time. He then entered a plea of guilty. The record also shows that on June 28, 1954, in the same court when the matter came on for further hearing that the court took testimony and fixed the degree of burglary at second degree and denied appellant’s motion for probation. The judge then recited to appellant what had occurred at the prior hearing, including the fact that he was entitled to counsel and that appellant had informed the court that he “didn’t want an attorney and wished to proceed without one.” The court then asked appellant if he had any legal cause to show why judgment should not be pronounced against him. The appellant answered, “No, Sir.”
Now, over ten years later, in the face of this unchallenged record, this case is being sent back for a hearing where the witnesses to the occurrences ten years ago may either be dead or presently unavailable.
I do not believe that any of the reported cases requires this court at this time and under the facts of this case to send it back for a hearing.
I would affirm.