Crayton

People v. Crayton

Good Law
77 Cal. App. 4th 307·91 Cal. Rptr. 2d 488
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 29, 2000B125826, B136548California4,857 words

Opinion

Opinion

Certified for Partial Publication. [*]

EPSTEIN, Acting P.J.

California law requires that defendants who appear for felony arraignment without counsel be informed of their right to the assistance of counsel and, if they desire counsel but cannot employ an attorney, to have counsel appointed. This statutory mandate complements a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court has held that, in felony cases, a waiver of the right to counsel taken pursuant to this statutory mandate does not carry from municipal court to superior court.

This case considers the ramifications of the trial court's failure at arraignment in superior court to readvise an unrepresented defendant of his right to counsel and to obtain a new waiver of that right when the case reached that court. In the published portion of this opinion, we conclude that the Sixth Amendment does not require a new admonishment and waiver. The applicable statute provides greater protection of a defendant's rights, but violation of its prescription does not always require reversal. Instead, such error should be analyzed under the prejudicial error provision of the California Constitution…

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.