Defendant sought review of a judgment from the Superior Court of Stanislaus County (California), which convicted him of burglary.
Defendant, an escapee from a mental hospital, kicked in a plate glass window of a business and stole some watches. He was apprehended and subsequently convicted of burglary based upon california civil jury instructions. Upon review, the court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial. The court held that defendant's appointed counsel's withdrawal of a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, which was entered for him by the trial court, constituted reversible error. The court determined that the trial court should not have allowed the plea to be withdrawn because defendant objected to it and, thus, had not authorized his counsel to do so. The court found that defendant was denied an opportunity to attempt to establish one of his pleaded defenses; thus, he did not receive a fair trial. The court held that defendant's counsel's statement to the trial court of his reasons for not allowing defendant to testify, which was made in defendant's absence, constituted reversible error because defendant may well have been deprived of an opportunity to object to his exclusion from the witness stand.
The court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded for a new trial.
Defendant appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California) sentencing him to concurrent sentences following his conviction of petty theft with a prior felony conviction ( Cal. Penal Code §§ 667, 484, 486, 488) and of conspiracy ( Cal. Penal Code § 182) to violate the provisions of Cal. Penal Code § 488 (petty theft), with an admitted prior conviction for burglary in the second degree.
There was no abuse of discretion in permitting defendant's attorney to withdraw where the motion to withdraw was timely made before the case was set for trial, and the withdrawal did not prejudice defendant, the prosecution, or the smooth course of administration of justice. No error was demonstrated in appointing the public defender to represent defendant as well as his codefendant. The failure to refer in the information to Cal. Penal Code §§ 484, 486, or 488 in charging theft was not a ground for objection. No error was demonstrated in the fact that defendant's admitted prior was known to the judge who heard the evidence relating to the current offense and decided that issue. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The failure to charge the codefendant with any offense other than conspiracy could not be deemed an acquittal of the substantive offense. To sentence defendant for conspiracy to commit petty theft in violation of Cal. Penal Code § 182 and for the aggravated petty theft in violation of Cal. Penal Code § 667 when the conspiracy had no objective apart from that crime violated the prohibition in Cal. Penal Code § 654 against multiple punishment.
The judgment was reversed insofar as it imposed a sentence for conspiracy, and in all other respects it was affirmed.