Hughes

Defendant Hughes and one Danny Dunkley were charged with several crimes involving assaults upon a fellow prisoner in a jail cell. Hughes appeals from a judgment of conviction on all charges.

At their preliminary examination attorney Wilmont Sweeney was appointed by the magistrate to represent both defendants. Upon their later arraignment in the superior court the following proceedings took place:

Hughes urges as error the fact that “No inquiry was made by the court as to whether there was any conflict in the positions between these two co-defendants nor was appellant asked whether he consented to have his counsel also represent Dunkley. ’ ’ He argues that, as a matter of law, á duty rested upon the court to make such affirmative inquiry.

The mere fact that an attorney is appointed to .represent multiple defendants does not deprive any of the defendants of his right to counsel. (People v. Ingle, 53 Cal.2d 407, 416-417 [ 2 Cal.Rptr. 14 , 348 P.2d 577 ]; People v. Jolke, 242 Cal.App.2d 132, 140 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 171 ] ; People v. Odom, 236 Cal.App.2d 876, 878 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 453 ].) This rule is supported by reason and experience. Very often, where no adverse interests exist, joint…