Zimmerman v. Municipal Court for Los Angeles Judicial District of Los Angeles County10/15/1980
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE
Civ. No. 57118
1980.CA.40284 ; 111 Cal. App. 3d 174; 168 Cal. Rptr. 434
October 15, 1980
ALLEN SHELDON ZIMMERMAN, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
THE MUNICIPAL COURT FOR THE LOS ANGELES JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT; THE PEOPLE, REAL PARTY IN INTEREST AND APPELLANT
Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. C 267545, Norman R. Dowds, Judge.
Burt Pines, City Attorney, George C. Eskin, Chief Assistant City Attorney, Rand Schrader, Assistant City Attorney, Jack L. Brown, Richard Edward Cates and Greg Wolff, Deputy City Attorneys, for Real Party in Interest and Appellant.
John K. Van de Kamp, District Attorney, Harry B. Sondheim and George M. Palmer, Deputy District Attorneys, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest and Appellant.
Peter R. diDonato, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.
Opinion by Hanson (Thaxton), J., with Jefferson (Bernard), Acting P. J., and Title, J., concurring.
Hanson
The People appeal an order of the superior court granting the petition of Allen Sheldon Zimmerman (defendant below) for a writ of mandate directing the municipal court to declare invalid his prior conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol. (Veh. Code, § 23102, subd. (a).)
Facts
On April 26, 1976, defendant Zimmerman appearing without counsel entered a plea of guilty to charges of driving under the influence of alcohol pursuant to section 23101, subdivision (a). The transcript discloses that immediately prior to his plea he was informed of the constitutional rights he was giving up including, inter alia, the right to remain silent, to a jury trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and to have counsel or court-appointed counsel. He indicated that he freely and voluntarily gave up these rights; that he understood the maximum penalty was six months in jail and a $500 fine; that he understood the terms and conditions of probation; and that he knew that in case he violated any one of these terms the maximum sentence could be imposed.
The entry in the court docket shows that defendant Zimmerman was in addition advised of the possible defenses available, both the minimum and maximum sentence, the other consequences of a guilty or nolo contendere plea and the effect of a subsequent conviction for the same offense. It further reflects the court's finding that all waivers were knowingly, intelligently and understandingly made by defendant. Neither the reporter's transcript nor the court docket shows that defendant was specifically advised of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation.
On March 14, 1978, defendant was charged (case No. V043805) with a section 23102, subdivision (a), violation and with suffering a prior conviction for the same offense on April 26, 1976 (case No. V004748). His motion to have the prior stricken on grounds that it was unconstitutional was denied by the trial court on October 24, 1978. In his declaration in support of that motion defendant Zimmerman alleged that he did not knowingly, intelligently and understandingly waive his right to counsel at the time of his guilty plea. After the court denied his motion, defendant on Novembe
Page 1 2 3 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|