Court Opinion

ID: 9733898
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:19:58.909201+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:44.338319
License: Public Domain

FRIEDMAN, J.
I concur in the result. I cannot agree that petitioner was adequately advised of his right to counsel either in the municipal or in the superior court; nor do I agree with the implication that a judge’s internal determination that the defendant knows what he is doing excuses the judge from compliance with the constitutional demands embodied in the Penal Code. The magistrate violated Penal Code section 859, which required him to initiate an inquiry into the defendant’s desire to be represented by counsel, his ability to procure counsel and, if the defendant was unable to employ an attorney, to assign competent counsel to conduct the defense. (Bogart v. Superior Court, 60 Cal.2d 436, 439 [34 Cal.Rptr. 850, 386 P.2d 474].) The magistrate also violated Penal Code section 866.5, which prohibits the defendant’s *385examination unless he is first fully informed of his rights and waives counsel.
The superior court judge was also required to inform petitioner that he had a right to counsel and that the court would appoint an attorney without cost if he was indigent. (In re Fresquez, 67 Cal.2d 626, 629 [63 Cal.Rptr. 271, 432 P.2d 959].) Unfortunately, the superior court judge was led into error by a record which erroneously implied an acceptable warning in the municipal court. Thus the judge filled the hiatus only partially when he asked: “Do you want the court to appoint a lawyer for you?” The latter inquiry did not carry with it awareness of availability of counsel at public expense.
Nevertheless, the combination of partial advice plus petitioner’s prior experience in criminal proceedings supports a prima facie inference that he had adequate understanding of his rights and intelligently waived them. As I interpret People v. Pineda, 253 Cal.App.2d 443, 479 [62 Cal.Rptr. 144], a petitioner collaterally attacking his conviction has the burden of rebutting such a prima facie record. Petitioner has not fulfilled that burden, but has rested his case entirely on the inadequacies of the judicial admonitions.