From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mooney v. Superior Court

Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division One
Mar 23, 1933
130 Cal.App. 521 (Cal. Ct. App. 1933)

Summary

In Mooney v. Superior Court, 130 Cal.App. 521 [ 20 P.2d 106], it is declared: "It is a general rule that a defendant in a felony case should be present when he is arraigned and at every subsequent stage of the trial.... His presence, however, is not necessary at proceedings which are merely preliminary or formal, and no matters affecting his guilt or innocence are presented."

Summary of this case from People v. Garcia

Opinion

Docket No. 9058.

March 23, 1933.

APPLICATION for a Writ of Mandate to require the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, and Louis H. Ward, Judge thereof, to permit the appearance of petitioner in court. Writ denied.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Frank P. Walsh and Leo J. Gallagher for Petitioner.


THE COURT.

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

[1] 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 P. 977]; 16 Cor. Jur., sec. 2068, p. 815). [2] While a defendant's right to be present at the time fixed for setting the case for trial was impliedly recognized in People v. Rader, 136 Cal. 253 [ 68 P. 707], in People v. Melandrez, 4 Cal.App. 396 [ 88 P. 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 cases 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.


Summaries of

Mooney v. Superior Court

Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division One
Mar 23, 1933
130 Cal.App. 521 (Cal. Ct. App. 1933)

In Mooney v. Superior Court, 130 Cal.App. 521 [ 20 P.2d 106], it is declared: "It is a general rule that a defendant in a felony case should be present when he is arraigned and at every subsequent stage of the trial.... His presence, however, is not necessary at proceedings which are merely preliminary or formal, and no matters affecting his guilt or innocence are presented."

Summary of this case from People v. Garcia
Case details for

Mooney v. Superior Court

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS J. MOONEY, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF…

Court:Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division One

Date published: Mar 23, 1933

Citations

130 Cal.App. 521 (Cal. Ct. App. 1933)
20 P.2d 106

Citing Cases

People v. Isby

" Thus, it is not necessary for a defendant to be present at proceedings which are merely preliminary or…

People v. Garcia

In his opening brief the defendant declares that the cases do not state a definite rule as to the matters…