Cleo F. Byrd v. Howard M. Comstock

Petitioner, a California state prisoner, appeals from an order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner and a co-defendant, who were represented by the same attorney, were convicted of robbery after joint trial before a judge sitting without a jury.

Petitioner’s claims arise from use at trial, without objection, of a statement given to the police by petitioner’s co-defendant.

Petitioner complains that the record does not establish that his co-defendant was given the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) before her statement was taken. But the purpose of such warnings would have been to safeguard the co-defendant’s privilege against self incrimination, a right personal to her. Petitioner may not complain of the violation of his co-defendant’s right, if any occurred. People v. Varnum, 66 Cal.2d 808, 812-813 , 59 Cal.Rptr. 108 , 427 P.2d 772 (1967); Cf. Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 171-176 , 89 S.Ct. 961 , 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969).

This also disposes of petitioner’s complaint that the trial court did not make a specific determination of volun-tariness of his co-defendant’s statement. In addition,…