Opinion
KAUS, J.
Defendant Robert Lee Massie appeals from a judgment imposing a sentence of death following his plea of guilty to charges of murder [622]*622with special circumstances, assault with a deadly weapon, four counts of possession of a concealable weapon by an ex-felon, and three counts of robbery.1
As will appear, we conclude that the judgment of death must be reversed because the trial court failed to follow Penal Code section 1018,2 as interpreted in People v. Chadd (1981) 28 Cal.3d 739 [170 Cal.Rptr. 798, 621 P.2d 837], in permitting defendant to enter a plea of guilty to the capital charges against the advice of defense counsel.
Just before defendant’s trial was scheduled to begin, defendant informed the court that he wanted to change his plea from not guilty to guilty— apparently in reaction to what he viewed as the trial court’s unwarranted acceptance of the truth of the testimony of several police officers regarding the circumstances surrounding defendant’s confession. In explaining his decision to change his plea, defendant stated: “I happened to have been telling the truth when I told you that I asked for attorneys when I come in here, [f] However, both officers have gotten on the stand and said the contrary. Okay. Fine. That’s the way it is. [f] At this point, I see no reason to pursue this, what is to me, a farce and a sham. I will just as soon go ahead, let the preliminary transcripts stand as they are, and as to the guilt—or if the prosecution desires, they can put on more witnesses. [H] But I just like the guilty plea to stand. I’d like a penalty trial period. And let it go at that.”
[623]*623Defense counsel, however, made it clear that he did not agree with his client’s decision to plead guilty. At the beginning of the change óf plea proceeding, he stated: “And this proceeding that we are about to enter into which would be a waiver of constitutional rights and pleas of guilty to the substantive counts, I believe is being entered into by Mr. Massie above and beyond the advice of counsel. We are ready to proceed with the guilty phase of this trial.” Shortly thereafter, just before advising defendant of his constitutional rights for the record, counsel again stated his opposition to the guilty plea: “This is being done against the advice of counsel.” Finally, after enumerating the specific constitutional rights that defendant was waiving by his plea, counsel once again stated: “Your honor, this plea is offered as results of discussions with my client, and we have discussed the matter carefully. [|] I believe the plea is—well, the plea is being offered against the advice of counsel at this time. However, it’s my understanding that Mr. Massie is adamant and wishes to enter pleas of guilty at this time.” [The Court]: “And for that reason, you do not withhold your consent, is that correct?” [Defense counsel]: “That is correct, your honor. And I don’t see that we can go any further with this matter with the state of the case as it is and my client’s wishes.”
Defendant’s pleas were entered a year and one-half before we filed our decision in People v. Chadd, supra, 28 Cal.3d 739, reviewing the restrictions set forth in section 1018 on the acceptance of guilty pleas in capital cases. In Chadd we discussed the statute’s history and noted that before it was amended in 1973, section 1018 provided simply that no plea of guilty to a capital charge could be received from a defendant who was not represented by counsel. In People v. Vaughn (1973) 9 Cal.3d 321 [107 Cal.Rptr. 318, 508 P.2d 318], a defendant who had pleaded guilty to a capital offense against the advice of counsel contended on appeal that the plea was improperly received under section 1018. The Vaughn court rejected the claim, reasoning that while section 1018—as it then read—was “obviously designed to protect defendants by assuring that such a serious step [i.e., pleading guilty to a capital offense] is a fully informed and competent one, taken only after consultation with and advice by counsel,” the statute did not require the defendant to follow that advice. (9 Cal.3d at pp. 327-328.)
As Chadd noted, however, shortly after the Vaughn decision “the Legislature closed the statutory gap revealed in Vaughn by adding to section 1018 the further requirement that a court cannot accept a guilty plea to a capital charge ‘without the consent of the defendant’s counsel.’” (28 Cal.3d at p. 749.) Chadd explained that the 1973 amendment to section 1018 “was an integral part of the Legislature’s extensive revision of the death penalty laws in response to the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Furman v. Georgia (1972) 408 U.S. 238 . . . to eliminate the arbitrariness [624]*624that Furman found inherent in the operation of prior death penalty legislation. . . . [T]he Legislature intended [the requirement of counsel’s consent to guilty pleas in capital cases] to serve as a further independent safeguard against erroneous imposition of a death sentence.” (Id. at p. 750.)
Chadd went on to observe that “[t]he effect of the amendment on the Vaughn rule is plain: we may safely assume it uncommon that an attorney who has advised a capital defendant against pleading guilty will consent to allow him to act contrary to that advice and to counsel’s professional judgment as to his client’s best interests. It follows that since the 1973 amendment a capital defendant is no longer permitted to plead guilty in this state against the advice of his attorney. ” (Italics added.) (Id. at pp. 749-750.)
In Chadd we rejected the Attorney General’s assertion that section 1018 could be read “to permit a capital defendant to discharge his attorney and plead guilty if he knowingly, voluntarily and openly waives his right to counsel,” pointing out that “that is precisely what the third sentence of section 1018 expressly authorizes noncapital defendants to do. The proposal would thus obliterate the Legislature’s careful distinction between capital and noncapital cases, and render largely superfluous its special provision for the former. Such a construction would be manifestly improper.” (28 Cal.3d at p. 747.)
We also rejected the Attorney General’s alternative claim that if section 1018 could not be so construed, it represented an unconstitutional infringement on the constitutional right of self-representation recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 [45 L.Ed.2d 562, 95 S.Ct. 2525]. We noted that “Faretta does not purport to guarantee a defendant acting in propria persona the right to do any and all things his attorney could have done.” (28 Cal.3d at p. 750.) Nor does it purport to abrogate the rule that a state could constitutionally prohibit all guilty pleas to murder charges (North Carolina v. Alford (1970) 400 U.S. 25, 38-39 [27 L.Ed.2d 162, 171-172, 91 S.Ct.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Opinion
KAUS, J.
Defendant Robert Lee Massie appeals from a judgment imposing a sentence of death following his plea of guilty to charges of murder [622]*622with special circumstances, assault with a deadly weapon, four counts of possession of a concealable weapon by an ex-felon, and three counts of robbery.1
As will appear, we conclude that the judgment of death must be reversed because the trial court failed to follow Penal Code section 1018,2 as interpreted in People v. Chadd (1981) 28 Cal.3d 739 [170 Cal.Rptr. 798, 621 P.2d 837], in permitting defendant to enter a plea of guilty to the capital charges against the advice of defense counsel.
Just before defendant’s trial was scheduled to begin, defendant informed the court that he wanted to change his plea from not guilty to guilty— apparently in reaction to what he viewed as the trial court’s unwarranted acceptance of the truth of the testimony of several police officers regarding the circumstances surrounding defendant’s confession. In explaining his decision to change his plea, defendant stated: “I happened to have been telling the truth when I told you that I asked for attorneys when I come in here, [f] However, both officers have gotten on the stand and said the contrary. Okay. Fine. That’s the way it is. [f] At this point, I see no reason to pursue this, what is to me, a farce and a sham. I will just as soon go ahead, let the preliminary transcripts stand as they are, and as to the guilt—or if the prosecution desires, they can put on more witnesses. [H] But I just like the guilty plea to stand. I’d like a penalty trial period. And let it go at that.”
[623]*623Defense counsel, however, made it clear that he did not agree with his client’s decision to plead guilty. At the beginning of the change óf plea proceeding, he stated: “And this proceeding that we are about to enter into which would be a waiver of constitutional rights and pleas of guilty to the substantive counts, I believe is being entered into by Mr. Massie above and beyond the advice of counsel. We are ready to proceed with the guilty phase of this trial.” Shortly thereafter, just before advising defendant of his constitutional rights for the record, counsel again stated his opposition to the guilty plea: “This is being done against the advice of counsel.” Finally, after enumerating the specific constitutional rights that defendant was waiving by his plea, counsel once again stated: “Your honor, this plea is offered as results of discussions with my client, and we have discussed the matter carefully. [|] I believe the plea is—well, the plea is being offered against the advice of counsel at this time. However, it’s my understanding that Mr. Massie is adamant and wishes to enter pleas of guilty at this time.” [The Court]: “And for that reason, you do not withhold your consent, is that correct?” [Defense counsel]: “That is correct, your honor. And I don’t see that we can go any further with this matter with the state of the case as it is and my client’s wishes.”
Defendant’s pleas were entered a year and one-half before we filed our decision in People v. Chadd, supra, 28 Cal.3d 739, reviewing the restrictions set forth in section 1018 on the acceptance of guilty pleas in capital cases. In Chadd we discussed the statute’s history and noted that before it was amended in 1973, section 1018 provided simply that no plea of guilty to a capital charge could be received from a defendant who was not represented by counsel. In People v. Vaughn (1973) 9 Cal.3d 321 [107 Cal.Rptr. 318, 508 P.2d 318], a defendant who had pleaded guilty to a capital offense against the advice of counsel contended on appeal that the plea was improperly received under section 1018. The Vaughn court rejected the claim, reasoning that while section 1018—as it then read—was “obviously designed to protect defendants by assuring that such a serious step [i.e., pleading guilty to a capital offense] is a fully informed and competent one, taken only after consultation with and advice by counsel,” the statute did not require the defendant to follow that advice. (9 Cal.3d at pp. 327-328.)
As Chadd noted, however, shortly after the Vaughn decision “the Legislature closed the statutory gap revealed in Vaughn by adding to section 1018 the further requirement that a court cannot accept a guilty plea to a capital charge ‘without the consent of the defendant’s counsel.’” (28 Cal.3d at p. 749.) Chadd explained that the 1973 amendment to section 1018 “was an integral part of the Legislature’s extensive revision of the death penalty laws in response to the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Furman v. Georgia (1972) 408 U.S. 238 . . . to eliminate the arbitrariness [624]*624that Furman found inherent in the operation of prior death penalty legislation. . . . [T]he Legislature intended [the requirement of counsel’s consent to guilty pleas in capital cases] to serve as a further independent safeguard against erroneous imposition of a death sentence.” (Id. at p. 750.)
Chadd went on to observe that “[t]he effect of the amendment on the Vaughn rule is plain: we may safely assume it uncommon that an attorney who has advised a capital defendant against pleading guilty will consent to allow him to act contrary to that advice and to counsel’s professional judgment as to his client’s best interests. It follows that since the 1973 amendment a capital defendant is no longer permitted to plead guilty in this state against the advice of his attorney. ” (Italics added.) (Id. at pp. 749-750.)
In Chadd we rejected the Attorney General’s assertion that section 1018 could be read “to permit a capital defendant to discharge his attorney and plead guilty if he knowingly, voluntarily and openly waives his right to counsel,” pointing out that “that is precisely what the third sentence of section 1018 expressly authorizes noncapital defendants to do. The proposal would thus obliterate the Legislature’s careful distinction between capital and noncapital cases, and render largely superfluous its special provision for the former. Such a construction would be manifestly improper.” (28 Cal.3d at p. 747.)
We also rejected the Attorney General’s alternative claim that if section 1018 could not be so construed, it represented an unconstitutional infringement on the constitutional right of self-representation recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 [45 L.Ed.2d 562, 95 S.Ct. 2525]. We noted that “Faretta does not purport to guarantee a defendant acting in propria persona the right to do any and all things his attorney could have done.” (28 Cal.3d at p. 750.) Nor does it purport to abrogate the rule that a state could constitutionally prohibit all guilty pleas to murder charges (North Carolina v. Alford (1970) 400 U.S. 25, 38-39 [27 L.Ed.2d 162, 171-172, 91 S.Ct. 160]) or the rule that a capital defendant has no right to waive his automatic appeal (People v. Stanworth (1969) 71 Cal.2d 820, 833 [80 Cal.Rptr. 49, 457 P.2d 889]). (Id. at pp. 751-752.) In short, we determined that Faretta did not affect the state’s power to limit a capital defendant’s right to plead guilty to situations in which his counsel advises such a move.
In the present case, it is quite clear that defendant’s guilty plea was entered over his counsel’s objection and advice to the contrary. Although defense counsel did not formally withhold consent, as was done in Chadd, the record compels the conclusion that that this is so only because at the time this plea was entered—long before our decision in Chadd—neither [625]*625counsel nor the trial court was aware of counsel’s duty to exercise independent judgment with respect to the decision to plead guilty. Counsel’s comments throughout the plea proceedings leave no doubt that he firmly believed that the guilty plea should not be entered and that it was being offered against his advice. Indeed, the trial court’s comments reveal quite plainly that it understood that counsel was going along simply because his client was “adamant” in his decision to plead guilty. No tactical considerations are apparent other than counsel’s possible fear that if he did not accede, defendant would simply dismiss him, and plead guilty in propria persona.
While at the time there was uncertainty about the effect of Faretta on section 1018, we now know that counsel’s fear was unwarranted. The matter was eventually resolved in Chadd when we held that it was within the Legislature’s power to determine, as it has, that a defendant who wants to plead guilty in a capital case must be represented by counsel who exercises his independent judgment in deciding whether to consent to the plea. (People v. Chadd, supra, 28 Cal.3d at pp. 747-750.)
The inescapable conclusion from this record is that (1) defense counsel formally “consented” to the guilty plea only because he was unaware of his responsibility to act on the basis of his independent professional judgment on the matter, and (2) the trial court accepted the guilty plea only because it too did not understand the purpose of section 1018’s requirement of a separate consent by defense counsel. The confusion of counsel and the court is understandable since, as noted, the plea proceedings in this case were conducted before we had directly ruled on the point in Chadd. Nonetheless, in light of Chadd’s holding, and its explanation of the important role that the independent consent requirement plays in eliminating arbitrariness in the death penalty process, defendant’s guilty plea to a capital offense against the advice of counsel cannot be permitted to stand.
The judgment must be reversed insofar as it convicts defendant of first degree murder on count I and finds true the special circumstances alleged in support of that count. Under Chadd, it also must be reversed as to the robbery in count II. (See fn. 1, ante.) As in Chadd, if the robbery conviction in count II were allowed to stand, “it would be conclusive on retrial of the murder count and the prosecution would need only prove the fact of the killing in its perpetration in order to obtain a new conviction of first degree murder.” (28 Cal.3d at p. 755.) The other convictions shall stand.
Our reversal of the capital charges makes it unnecessary to discuss any of defendant’s other contentions, since they all went to the capital nature of the case.
[626]*626On counts I and II the judgment is reversed with directions to the trial court to strike from its records defendant’s pleas of guilty and his admissions of charged enhancements and special circumstances allegations. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.
Bird, C. J., Broussard, J., Reynoso, J., and Grodin, J., concurred.
Retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court sitting under assignment by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council.