Hinkley

People v. Hinkley

Good Law
193 Cal. App. 3d 383·1987 Cal. App. LEXIS 1903·238 Cal. Rptr. 272
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 3, 1987F006925California2,997 words

Opinion

Opinion

Brown, J.

Appellant, John Lee Hinkley, was convicted by a jury of the unlawful taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851) and driving under the influence of drugs (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)). He was sentenced to state prison. The trial court denied his motion for a new trial. This appeal followed.

Appellant contends that his trial counsel, Roy Mays, did not competently represent him under the standards of People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 732 , 590 P.2d 859 , 2 A.L.R.4th 1 ] and People v. Fosselman (1983) 33 Cal.3d 572 [ 189 Cal.Rptr. 855 , 659 P.2d 1144 ]. Appellant further argues, aside from the quality of representation, that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel at trial because his attorney had been suspended from the practice of law for the nonpayment of dues and because his attorney’s practice had been taken over by the superior court pursuant to and under the authority of Business and Professions Code section 6190 et seq. pursuant to a decision of the State Bar Court which resulted in his attorney being enrolled as an inactive member of the State Bar of California pursuant to section 6007, subdivision (b)(2).

Appellant also asserts he was…

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.