In Re Moss

175 Cal. App. 3d 913, 221 Cal. Rptr. 645, 1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 2888
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedDecember 18, 1985
DocketB010063
StatusPublished
Cited by39 cases

This text of 175 Cal. App. 3d 913 (In Re Moss) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Moss, 175 Cal. App. 3d 913, 221 Cal. Rptr. 645, 1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 2888 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

Opinion

GILBERT, J.

—Petitioner, Marshall Robert Moss, seeks review in a writ of habeas corpus of his convictions of driving under the influence, driving *918 with a suspended license, and his admission to probation violations. We conclude that certain constitutional rights of Moss were violated.

Facts

On April 28, 1983, Moss appeared in propria persona before the Ventura Municipal Coiirt for arraignment on a misdemeanor complaint charging him in counts I and II with driving under the influence of alcohol (Veh. Code, § 23152, subds. (a), (b)) and, in count III; driving with a suspended license (Veh. Code, § 14601, subd. (a)). The complaint also alleged Moss had been convicted of prior offenses for driving under the influence of alcohol in 1979 and 1982. When we examined the municipal court file, it contained only the original first page of the complaint and a copy of the second page. On page two was the allegation that Moss had been convicted of a prior violation of Vehicle Code section 14601, subdivision (a) on March 15, 1979.

Moss signed and initialed a form entitled “Ventura County Municipal Court—23152—Waiver of Constitutional Rights,” a copy of which is set out in an appendix to this opinion. 1 Near the bottom of the front page of the form is a sentence which reads, “[h]aving in mind the rights I will be giving up, ahd all the possible consequences of my plea, I desire to plead Guilty/No Contest to violation of Section 23152 of the Vehicle Code.” On the reverse side of the form, under the paragraph entitled “Waiver of Attorney,” there appears the following sentence: “I understand I have a right to have a lawyer defend me at all stáges of the proceedings, and that if I cannot afford to hire a lawyer, the court will provide ohe for me. I knowingly and intelligently Waive (Give Up) my right to a Lawyer.” Moss signed his name on the signature line immediately beneath this sentence.

Moss’ petition contains a transcript purporting to accurately depict the contents of a tape recording of the proceedings held on April 28, and April 29, of 1983. We have listened to the tape recording of the proceedings, and reviewed the transcript. (See Stewart v. Justice Court (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 607, 611 [141 Cal.Rptr. 589].)

Initially, the People did not challenge the accuracy of the transcript submitted by Moss. Instead, they relied upon portions of the transcript of the tape recording to support their claim that Moss was duly advised of his *919 constitutional rights. It was not until after we issued our first opinion that the People argued that the tape recording did not include a crucial portion of the proceedings but conceded they had no traditional grounds on which to base a petition for rehearing. We discerned a pause or gap in the recorded conversation. Therefore, we granted a rehearing on our own motion and appointed retired Los Angeles Superior Court Judge George Dell to sit as a referee to take evidence, and to determine certain factual issues concerning that portion of the hearing not captured on tape.

The tape recording revealed that a discussion between the court and Moss took place.

[Judge]: “Okay Mr. Moss. You’re charged with driving a vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor and driving on a suspended license. Do you understand those charges?

[Pet]: “Yes, Your Honor.

[Judge]: “Do you wish to be represented by an attorney?

[Pet]: “No, Your Honor.”

The transcript of the tape recording reflects that no further advisements or inquiries relating to Moss’ constitutional rights were made by the court. There was no discussion of the “Waiver of Constitutional Rights” form signed by Moss.

The following discussion between the judge and Moss took place concerning the two prior driving under the influence convictions:

[Judge]: “Do you admit that you were convicted of driving under the influence in Ventura in 1982?

[Pet]: “Yes, sir. I think it was about October.

[Judge]: “October ’82?

[Judge]: “And March of ’79?

[Pet]: “Uh, I don’t know about March ’79, Your Honor. I imagine so.

[Judge]: “Well it shows that in ’79 you were arrested in February and convicted on March 15.

*920 [Pet]: “This may be so, Your Honor. I, I don’t recollect what date.

[Judge]: “Okay. But somewhere in ’79 you were convicted of this offense, is that right?

[Pet]: “As far as I know, yes, sir.

[Judge]: “Okay. Two priors are admitted.”

A discussion then took place concerning a prior violation of Vehicle Code section 14601. The judge was perplexed because at that time page two of the complaint was missing from the court file. He shared his dilemma with Moss. “The pink sheet shows a prior 14601 but it’s not, I don’t have a complaint that alleges it.” Petitioner tried to help. He told the court: “Does that not include one of those other ...”

[Judge]: “Well, let me see. Maybe you’re right and I’m . . .

[Pet]: “I believe that was sir.

[Judge]: “It says page 1 of 2, but I don’t have page 2. . . . Well in order for me to do something about it someone’s going to have to file page 2. . . . And it would be helpful to sign page 2.”

This illuminating dialogue was interrupted when a messenger delivering flowers appeared and addressed the court. The judge assisted the messenger, and the flowers were presumably delivered to court personnel. 2

Perhaps the judge had become sidetracked, since there is no acknowledgment of an admission to the prior conviction of Vehicle Code section 14601, nor is there any further discussion concerning that prior conviction. The judge then proceeded to take pleas of guilty to driving under the influence and driving with a suspended license, counts I and III. 3

When Moss admitted his probation violations, either insouciance or expediency came into full bloom. The judge said: “Okay. And you’re also on probation. I’ve got you here with three cases that you’re presently on probation. Do you admit that you’re in violation of your probation?”

*921 [Pet]: “Yes, Your Honor.

[Judge]: “Okay. Well, Mr. Moss I’m going to have all these matters, refer them to the probation office and set it for a hearing tomorrow at 1:30. We’ll see you tomorrow at 1:30 on all these matters.”

The next day, April 29, 1983, was not any better for Mr. Moss. He was sentenced to five consecutive one-year terms in the county jail. 4 The judge highlighted the event by commenting: “Well Mr. Moss, you win the prize for the day.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Bennett CA2/1
California Court of Appeal, 2022
People v. Bailey CA2/5
California Court of Appeal, 2021
People v. Watts CA4/1
California Court of Appeal, 2021
People v. Williamson CA2/6
California Court of Appeal, 2015
People v. McGhee CA4/2
California Court of Appeal, 2015
People v. Odom CA4/1
California Court of Appeal, 2014
Dearcey Stewart v. Matthew Cate
757 F.3d 929 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)
In re Rainey
California Court of Appeal, 2014
In re Pulido CA1/1
California Court of Appeal, 2013
P. v. Moreno CA4/2
California Court of Appeal, 2013
P. v. Sharrieff CA4/2
California Court of Appeal, 2013
Chaffer v. Prosper
542 F.3d 662 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
People v. Bautista
8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 862 (California Court of Appeal, 2004)
People v. Carter
70 P.3d 981 (California Supreme Court, 2003)
Carey v. Saffold
536 U.S. 214 (Supreme Court, 2002)
Rose v. Superior Court
92 Cal. Rptr. 2d 313 (California Court of Appeal, 2000)
In Re Ramey
82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 849 (California Court of Appeal, 1999)
People v. Malabag
51 Cal. App. 4th 1419 (California Court of Appeal, 1997)
People v. Jones
37 Cal. App. 4th 1312 (California Court of Appeal, 1995)
People v. Moore
8 Cal. App. 4th 411 (California Court of Appeal, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
175 Cal. App. 3d 913, 221 Cal. Rptr. 645, 1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 2888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-moss-calctapp-1985.