Court Opinion

ID: 9601568
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:47:03.669551+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:58.698792
License: Public Domain

SHENK, J.
I concur. The petitioner has shown a denial of his constitutional right to counsel. The cases involving this question usually turn on the application of their own facts. The facts in People v. Dorman, 28 Cal.2d 846 [172 P.2d 686], bear no resemblance to the present case. There the appellant was represented by counsel during all the 41-day period from arraignment to trial. During the trial he “was ably and energetically represented by counsel of his choice” and “The conduct of the defense was full and fair” (majority opinion, p. 852.) It was said in the dissenting opinion at page 859 that defense counsel “presented a vigorous defense.” The question in that case was whether the trial judge had abused his discretion in not granting a further continuance. It was held that on the facts presented he had not.
Petitioner’s application for a rehearing was denied October 22, 1953.