In re Luce

Good Law
1966 Cal. LEXIS 227·48 Cal. Rptr. 694·64 Cal. 2d 11·409 P.2d 918
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJanuary 26, 1966Crim. No. 8411California1,112 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Peek, J.

Henry C. Luce, presently confined in San Quentin Prison serving a sentence for felony indecent exposure (Pen. Code, § 314), seeks discharge by writ of habeas corpus (see People v. Dowding, 185 Cal.App.2d 274, 276-277 [ 8 Cal.Rptr. 208 ]). His petition is predicated on the ground that a prior conviction for a like offense, which was used to elevate the present offense from misdemeanor to felony status (see Pen. Code, § 314, subd. 2, par. 2), was entered upon a plea of guilty made without apprisal or awareness of his right to counsel or waiver of such right.

A certified abstract of the record of the prior proceeding reflects that in 1950, in the Municipal Court for the Oakland-Piedmont Judicial District, County of Alameda, petitioner was charged with indecent exposure in violation of section 311 of the Penal Code, presently section 314, subdivision 1 (Stats. 1961, ch. 2147, §§ 1, 7), a misdemeanor. He initially pleaded not guilty, but later changed his plea to guilty. Concerning legal representation at the time he changed his plea to guilty, the certified abstract merely states that “Court docket does not show of record that any defense attorney was present.” Petitioner was placed…

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.