Howell

People v. Howell

Good Law
178 Cal. App. 3d 268·1986 Cal. App. LEXIS 2654·223 Cal. Rptr. 818
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 28, 1986G003045California2,944 words

Opinion

Opinion

Crosby, J.

Must an indigent accused—who is provided counsel for the arraignment only—be advised of and waive the right to appointed counsel at all subsequent stages of the proceedings before the court may accept his guilty plea? Yes.

I

Pursuant to rule 63(a), California Rules of Court, the Appellate Department of the Orange County Superior Court certified this appeal from the municipal court’s denial of Stephen Howell’s motion to declare the prior conviction of driving under the influence of alcohol unconstitutional. The uncontroverted evidence before the trial court on the motion established the following: Howell, an indigent, appeared for arraignment on a charge of driving under the influence of alcohol in the North San Diego County Municipal Court on April 20, 1984. There he was met and counseled along with some 100 other persons by an individual who appeared in the courtroom. During his presentation Howell learned this person was a private lawyer apparently provided by the court.

The attorney discussed possible defenses and potential problems associated with various types of blood-alcohol testing and described the concept of probable cause at length. On the subject of the…

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.