Mooney v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Mooney v. Superior Court

20 P.2d 106, 130 Cal. App. 521, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 1072

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 23, 1933

DocketDocket No. 9058.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 20 P.2d 106 (Mooney v. Superior Court) 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

Mooney v. Superior Court, 20 P.2d 106, 130 Cal. App. 521, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 1072 (Cal. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

The petition for an alternative writ of mandate filed in the above-entitled matter is hereby denied.

It is the general rule that a defendant in a felony case should be present when he is arraigned and at every subsequent stage of the trial (16 Cor. Jur., Criminal Law, sec. 2066, p. 813). His presence, however, is not necessary at proceedings which are merely preliminary or formal and no matters affecting his guilt or innocence are presented (People v. Morrell, 28 Cal. App. 729 [153 Pac. 977]; 16 Cor. Jur., see. 2068, p. 815). While a defendant’s right to be present at the time fixed for setting the ease for trial was impliedly recognized in People v. Rader, 136 Cal. 253 [68 Pac. 707], in People v. Melandrez, 4 Cal. App. 396 [88 Pac. 372], it was held that such an order made in his absence, where his attorney was present and ample time was given to prepare for trial, was not erroneous. Any error in this connection is of course reviewable on appeal, but is not a ground for the issuance of the writ here demanded. The rule followed in the eases last cited appears to be the correct one, and supports the conclusion that a defendant who is represented by counsel—which is the case here—is not entitled as a matter of right to be present when the case is set for trial.

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

THE COURT.

The petition for an alternative writ of mandate filed in the above-entitled matter is hereby denied.

It is the general rule that a defendant in a felony case should be present when he is arraigned and at every subsequent stage of the trial (16 Cor. Jur., Criminal Law, sec. 2066, p. 813). His presence, however, is not necessary at proceedings which are merely preliminary or formal and no matters affecting his guilt or innocence are presented (People v. Morrell, 28 Cal. App. 729 [153 Pac. 977]; 16 Cor. Jur., see. 2068, p. 815). While a defendant’s right to be present at the time fixed for setting the ease for trial was impliedly recognized in People v. Rader, 136 Cal. 253 [68 Pac. 707], in People v. Melandrez, 4 Cal. App. 396 [88 Pac. 372], it was held that such an order made in his absence, where his attorney was present and ample time was given to prepare for trial, was not erroneous. Any error in this connection is of course reviewable on appeal, but is not a ground for the issuance of the writ here demanded. The rule followed in the eases last cited appears to be the correct one, and supports the conclusion that a defendant who is represented by counsel—which is the case here—is not entitled as a matter of right to be present when the case is set for trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 P.2d 106, 130 Cal. App. 521, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 1072, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mooney-v-superior-court-calctapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack