Angulo

People v. Angulo

Good Law
148 Cal. Rptr. 517·1978 Cal. App. LEXIS 1994·85 Cal. App. 3d 514
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 13, 1978Crim. 2944California1,281 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ginsburg, J.

Appellants, Florintino Angulo and Roberto Perez Rodriquez, were convicted after trial by jury of a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352, sale of heroin.

The Issue

The sole issue to be determined in this case is whether the constitutional right to be represented by effective counsel includes the right of codefendants for whom joint counsel has been appointed to have separate counsel absent a request therefor. We have concluded, based upon precedent, that if a possible conflict of interest develops, the right to be represented by separate counsel subsists unless the record affirmatively shows that the defendants were informed of this right and knowingly waived it.

Facts and Background of the Case

On July 26, 1976, a special investigator for the Madera County Sheriff’s office working undercover arranged through an informer to purchase two ounces of heroin from appellant Angulo for the sum of $1,500. A meeting was held near an orchard for the purpose of consummating the sale. Angulo arrived at the meeting with the informer, followed by appellant Rodriquez in another vehicle. Rodriquez obtained a bag of what was later identified as heroin from his car and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.