confession obtained violation in California

1967“We therefore conclude that, so far as the record shows, Boddie’s conviction rested upon a confession obtained in violation of Escobedo and Dorado; since the erroneous admission of a confession is necessarily prejudicial (People v. Schader, supra, 62 Cal.2d 716, 728-731 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 193 , 401 P.2d 665 ]; People v. Dorado, supra, 62 Cal.2d 338, 356 ; People v. Parham, supra, 60 Cal.2d 378, 385 [ 33 Cal.Rptr. 497 , 384 P.2d 1001 ]; see Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 18 , 23 & fn. 8 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 827-828 ] (dictum)), Boddie’s conviction must be reversed.” The rec

1967“We therefore conclude that, so far as the record shows, Boddie’s conviction rested upon a confession obtained in violation of Escobedo and Dorado; since the erroneous admission of a confession is necessarily prejudicial (People v. Schader, supra, 62 Cal.2d 716, 728-731 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 193 , 401 P.2d 665 ]; People v. Dorado, supra, 62 Cal.2d 338, 356 ; People v. Parham, supra, 60 Cal.2d 378, 385 [ 33 Cal.Rptr. 497 , 384 P.2d 1001 ]; see Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 18 , 23 & fn. 8 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 827-828 ] (dictum)), Boddie’s conviction must be reversed.” The rec

1967“We therefore conclude that, so far as the record shows, Boddie’s conviction rested upon a confession obtained in violation of Escobedo and Dorado; since the erroneous admission of a confession is necessarily prejudicial (People v. Schader, supra, 62 Cal.2d 716, 728-731 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 193 , 401 P.2d 665 ]; People v. Dorado, supra, 62 Cal.2d 338, 356 ; People v. Parham, supra, 60 Cal.2d 378, 385 [ 33 Cal.Rptr. 497 , 384 P.2d 1001 ]; see Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 18 , 23 & fn. 8 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 827-828 ] (dictum)), Boddie’s conviction must be reversed.” The rec

1967“We therefore conclude that, so far as the record shows, Boddie’s conviction rested upon a confession obtained in violation of Escobedo and Dorado; since the erroneous admission of a confession is necessarily prejudicial (People v. Schader, supra, 62 Cal.2d 716, 728-731 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 193 , 401 P.2d 665 ]; People v. Dorado, supra, 62 Cal.2d 338, 356 ; People v. Parham, supra, 60 Cal.2d 378, 385 [ 33 Cal.Rptr. 497 , 384 P.2d 1001 ]; see Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 18 , 23 & fn. 8 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 827-828 ] (dictum)), Boddie’s conviction must be reversed.” The rec

1970Petitioner alleges that the authority’s determination to terminate his parole status was based primarily on (1) evidence obtained through an unconstitutional search and seizure and (2) a confession obtained in violation of People v. Dorado (1965) 62 Cal.2d 338 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 169 , 398 P.2d 361 ], and petitioner contends that such matters should not properly be considered by the Adult Authority.

1970Petitioner alleges that the authority’s determination to terminate his parole status was based primarily on (1) evidence obtained through an unconstitutional search and seizure and (2) a confession obtained in violation of People v. Dorado (1965) 62 Cal.2d 338 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 169 , 398 P.2d 361 ], and petitioner contends that such matters should not properly be considered by the Adult Authority.

1967“We therefore conclude that, so far as the record shows, Boddie’s conviction rested upon a confession obtained in violation of Escobedo and Dorado; since the erroneous admission of a confession is necessarily prejudicial (People v. Schader, supra, 62 Cal.2d 716, 728-731 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 193 , 401 P.2d 665 ]; People v. Dorado, supra, 62 Cal.2d 338, 356 ; People v. Parham, supra, 60 Cal.2d 378, 385 [ 33 Cal.Rptr. 497 , 384 P.2d 1001 ]; see Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 18 , 23 & fn. 8 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 827-828 ] (dictum)), Boddie’s conviction must be reversed.” The rec

1967“We therefore conclude that, so far as the record shows, Boddie’s conviction rested upon a confession obtained in violation of Escobedo and Dorado; since the erroneous admission of a confession is necessarily prejudicial (People v. Schader, supra, 62 Cal.2d 716, 728-731 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 193 , 401 P.2d 665 ]; People v. Dorado, supra, 62 Cal.2d 338, 356 ; People v. Parham, supra, 60 Cal.2d 378, 385 [ 33 Cal.Rptr. 497 , 384 P.2d 1001 ]; see Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 18 , 23 & fn. 8 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 827-828 ] (dictum)), Boddie’s conviction must be reversed.” The rec

1990When this case was before this court on appeal after defendant's first trial, we reversed defendant's convictions on the ground that a confession obtained in violation of the privilege against self-incrimination had been admitted in evidence. ( People v. Mattson (1984) 37 Cal.3d 85 [ 207 Cal. Rptr. 278 , 688 P.2d 887 ].) I agree with Justice Mosk that at defendant's second trial, the People had no authority to seek to relitigate that determination by the presentation of new evidence and a new theory supporting the admissibility of the confession.

1990When this case was before this court on appeal after defendant's first trial, we reversed defendant's convictions on the ground that a confession obtained in violation of the privilege against self-incrimination had been admitted in evidence. ( People v. Mattson (1984) 37 Cal.3d 85 [ 207 Cal. Rptr. 278 , 688 P.2d 887 ].) I agree with Justice Mosk that at defendant's second trial, the People had no authority to seek to relitigate that determination by the presentation of new evidence and a new theory supporting the admissibility of the confession.

1967The admission of a confession obtained in violation of Escobedo requires reversal even though other evidence is sufficient to support the conviction, ‘ ‘ at least when the admissible evidence does not include an equally damaging confession.” (People v. Price, 63 Cal.2d 370, 377 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 775 , 406 P.2d 55 ].)

1967The admission of a confession obtained in violation of Escobedo requires reversal even though other evidence is sufficient to support the conviction, ‘ ‘ at least when the admissible evidence does not include an equally damaging confession.” (People v. Price, 63 Cal.2d 370, 377 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 775 , 406 P.2d 55 ].)

1965In People v. Furnish, 63 Cal.2d 511 , the court points out at p. 515 [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 387 , 407 P.2d 299 ] : “ The use of a confession obtained in violation of Escobedo or Dorado , like the use of a coerced confession, generally requires reversal “regardless of other evidence of guilt,” ’ ” (italics added), citing People v. Jacobson, 63 Cal.2d 319, 329-330 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 515 , 405 P.2d 555 ], In concluding that reversal was required, the court in Furnish stated that “The error in the admissions of such confessions is clearly prejudicial.” (Italics added), again citing for comparison People v. Ja

1965In People v. Furnish, 63 Cal.2d 511 , the court points out at p. 515 [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 387 , 407 P.2d 299 ] : “ The use of a confession obtained in violation of Escobedo or Dorado , like the use of a coerced confession, generally requires reversal “regardless of other evidence of guilt,” ’ ” (italics added), citing People v. Jacobson, 63 Cal.2d 319, 329-330 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 515 , 405 P.2d 555 ], In concluding that reversal was required, the court in Furnish stated that “The error in the admissions of such confessions is clearly prejudicial.” (Italics added), again citing for comparison People v. Ja

1968(See People v. Powell (1967) 67 Cal.2d 32, 51-52 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 817 , 429 P.2d 137 ], and cases cited.) We have recognized an exception to that rule in the ease of a confession obtained in violation of Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) 378 U.S. 478 [ 12 L.Ed.2d 977 , 84 S.Ct. 1758 ], and People v. Dorado (1965) 62 Cal.2d 338 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 169 , 398 P.2d 361 ], when there was also in evidence an equally or more damaging admissible confession made before the inadmissible confession and thus there was no danger that the former was the product of the latter.

1968(See People v. Powell (1967) 67 Cal.2d 32, 51-52 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 817 , 429 P.2d 137 ], and cases cited.) We have recognized an exception to that rule in the ease of a confession obtained in violation of Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) 378 U.S. 478 [ 12 L.Ed.2d 977 , 84 S.Ct. 1758 ], and People v. Dorado (1965) 62 Cal.2d 338 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 169 , 398 P.2d 361 ], when there was also in evidence an equally or more damaging admissible confession made before the inadmissible confession and thus there was no danger that the former was the product of the latter.

1968(People v. Rollins (1967) 65 Cal.2d 681, 685-691 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 293 , 423 P.2d 221 ].) We intimate no opinion on the question whether, under Miranda, the admission of a confession obtained in violation of constitutional rights is per se prejudicial whether or not the confession is to the crime charged and whether or not such confession is admitted for a limited purpose.

1968(People v. Rollins (1967) 65 Cal.2d 681, 685-691 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 293 , 423 P.2d 221 ].) We intimate no opinion on the question whether, under Miranda, the admission of a confession obtained in violation of constitutional rights is per se prejudicial whether or not the confession is to the crime charged and whether or not such confession is admitted for a limited purpose.

1968(People v. Cotter (1965) 63 Cal.2d 386, 398 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 622 , 405 P.2d 862 ], vacated on other grounds (1967) 386 U.S. 274 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 43 , 87 S.Ct. 1035 ] ; People v. Jacobson (1965) 63 Cal.2d 319, 329-331 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 515 , 405 P.2d 555 ].) We need not decide whether this exception may also apply in the ease of an involuntary confession, for in no event is it applicable when, as in the present ease, “the admissible evidence does not include an equally damaging confession.” (People v. Price (1965) 63 Cal.2d 370, 377 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 775 , 406 P.2d 55 ] ; People v. Powell, supra, 67 Cal.2d

1968(People v. Cotter (1965) 63 Cal.2d 386, 398 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 622 , 405 P.2d 862 ], vacated on other grounds (1967) 386 U.S. 274 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 43 , 87 S.Ct. 1035 ] ; People v. Jacobson (1965) 63 Cal.2d 319, 329-331 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 515 , 405 P.2d 555 ].) We need not decide whether this exception may also apply in the ease of an involuntary confession, for in no event is it applicable when, as in the present ease, “the admissible evidence does not include an equally damaging confession.” (People v. Price (1965) 63 Cal.2d 370, 377 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 775 , 406 P.2d 55 ] ; People v. Powell, supra, 67 Cal.2d

1967(Herman v. Claudy (1956) 350 U.S. 116, 122 [ 100 L.Ed. 126 , 76 S.Ct. 223 ]; Wright v. Dickson (9th Cir. 1964) 336 F.2d 878, 882 [plea invalid if “induced by incriminating statements obtained by . . . interrogation [violative of Escobedo] ’ ’] ; United States ex rel.

1967(Herman v. Claudy (1956) 350 U.S. 116, 122 [ 100 L.Ed. 126 , 76 S.Ct. 223 ]; Wright v. Dickson (9th Cir. 1964) 336 F.2d 878, 882 [plea invalid if “induced by incriminating statements obtained by . . . interrogation [violative of Escobedo] ’ ’] ; United States ex rel.

1967It is because of the effect of the confession that the reversal is compelled.” (People v. Schader, supra, 62 Cal.2d 716, 729-730 ; see also People v. Dorado, supra, 62 Cal.2d 338, 356 .) We recognized as much in In re Seiterle (1964) 61 Cal.2d 651, 657 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 716 , 394 P.2d 556 ], when we found it necessary to determine whether “the existence of [a confession obtained in violation of Escobedo] caused [defendant] to plead guilty. ...” Although we reached a determination adverse to the defendant in Seiterle , we did so only because “his initial plea, closest in time to the confession, wa

1967It is because of the effect of the confession that the reversal is compelled.” (People v. Schader, supra, 62 Cal.2d 716, 729-730 ; see also People v. Dorado, supra, 62 Cal.2d 338, 356 .) We recognized as much in In re Seiterle (1964) 61 Cal.2d 651, 657 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 716 , 394 P.2d 556 ], when we found it necessary to determine whether “the existence of [a confession obtained in violation of Escobedo] caused [defendant] to plead guilty. ...” Although we reached a determination adverse to the defendant in Seiterle , we did so only because “his initial plea, closest in time to the confession, wa

1967(Herman v. Claudy (1956) 350 U.S. 116, 122 [ 100 L.Ed. 126 , 76 S.Ct. 223 ]; Wright v. Dickson (9th Cir. 1964) 336 F.2d 878, 882 [plea invalid if “induced by incriminating statements obtained by . . . interrogation [violative of Escobedo] ’ ’] ; United States ex rel.

1967(Herman v. Claudy (1956) 350 U.S. 116, 122 [ 100 L.Ed. 126 , 76 S.Ct. 223 ]; Wright v. Dickson (9th Cir. 1964) 336 F.2d 878, 882 [plea invalid if “induced by incriminating statements obtained by . . . interrogation [violative of Escobedo] ’ ’] ; United States ex rel.

1967It is because of the effect of the confession that the reversal is compelled.” (People v. Schader, supra, 62 Cal.2d 716, 729-730 ; see also People v. Dorado, supra, 62 Cal.2d 338, 356 .) We recognized as much in In re Seiterle (1964) 61 Cal.2d 651, 657 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 716 , 394 P.2d 556 ], when we found it necessary to determine whether “the existence of [a confession obtained in violation of Escobedo] caused [defendant] to plead guilty. ...” Although we reached a determination adverse to the defendant in Seiterle , we did so only because “his initial plea, closest in time to the confession, wa

1967It is because of the effect of the confession that the reversal is compelled.” (People v. Schader, supra, 62 Cal.2d 716, 729-730 ; see also People v. Dorado, supra, 62 Cal.2d 338, 356 .) We recognized as much in In re Seiterle (1964) 61 Cal.2d 651, 657 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 716 , 394 P.2d 556 ], when we found it necessary to determine whether “the existence of [a confession obtained in violation of Escobedo] caused [defendant] to plead guilty. ...” Although we reached a determination adverse to the defendant in Seiterle , we did so only because “his initial plea, closest in time to the confession, wa

1966The import of the admission of a confession obtained in violation of defendant’s rights was considered by the United States Supreme Court in Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 307 [ 83 S.Ct. 745, 754 , 9 L.Ed.2d 770, 782 ], where it was held: “If an individual’s ‘will was overborne’ or if his confession was not ‘the product of a rational intellect and a free will,' his confession is inadmissible because coerced.

1966The import of the admission of a confession obtained in violation of defendant’s rights was considered by the United States Supreme Court in Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 307 [ 83 S.Ct. 745, 754 , 9 L.Ed.2d 770, 782 ], where it was held: “If an individual’s ‘will was overborne’ or if his confession was not ‘the product of a rational intellect and a free will,' his confession is inadmissible because coerced.

1966These standards are applicable whether a confession is the product of physical intimidation or psychological pressure. ...” Similarly, in Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U.S. 534, 544 [ 81 S.Ct. 735, 741 , 5 L.Ed.2d 760, 768 ], the essential issue for determination in deciding the admissibility of a confession, which was the product of a custodial interrogation, was described: “The attention of the trial judge should have been focused, for purposes of the Federal Constitution, on the question whether the behavior of the State’s law enforcement officials was such as to overbear petitioner’s will to res

1966These standards are applicable whether a confession is the product of physical intimidation or psychological pressure. ...” Similarly, in Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U.S. 534, 544 [ 81 S.Ct. 735, 741 , 5 L.Ed.2d 760, 768 ], the essential issue for determination in deciding the admissibility of a confession, which was the product of a custodial interrogation, was described: “The attention of the trial judge should have been focused, for purposes of the Federal Constitution, on the question whether the behavior of the State’s law enforcement officials was such as to overbear petitioner’s will to res

1990As Justice Kennard demonstrates in her concurring opinion, the issue of the admissibility of the statements arose at the first trial in the context of a motion under Penal Code section 1538.5. [1] It is true that a motion pursuant to section 1538.5 will not lie to suppress a confession on the sole ground that the confession was obtained in violation of the privilege against self-incrimination. ( People v. Superior Court ( Zolnay ) (1975) 15 Cal.3d 729, 734 [ 125 Cal. Rptr. 798 , 542 P.2d 1390 ].) Nonetheless, when it is argued, as it was in this case, that physical evidence was illegally seize

1990As Justice Kennard demonstrates in her concurring opinion, the issue of the admissibility of the statements arose at the first trial in the context of a motion under Penal Code section 1538.5. [1] It is true that a motion pursuant to section 1538.5 will not lie to suppress a confession on the sole ground that the confession was obtained in violation of the privilege against self-incrimination. ( People v. Superior Court ( Zolnay ) (1975) 15 Cal.3d 729, 734 [ 125 Cal. Rptr. 798 , 542 P.2d 1390 ].) Nonetheless, when it is argued, as it was in this case, that physical evidence was illegally seize

1988(See People v. Spencer (1967) 66 Cal.2d 158, 167 [ 57 Cal.Rptr. 163 , 424 P.2d 715 ]; People v. Johnson (1969) 70 Cal.2d 541, 547 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 401 , 450 P.2d 865 , 43 A.L.R.3d 366 ], disapproved on other grounds in People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 899, fn. 8 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 786 , 558 P.2d 872 ]; see also In re Pablo C. (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 984, 989 [ 181 Cal.Rptr. 468 ]; People v. Celaya (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 665, 673 [ 236 Cal.Rptr. 489 ]; People v. Underwood (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 1223, 1233 [ 226 Cal.Rptr. 840 ].) Upon arresting defendant, Deputy Baker failed to advise him of his

1988(See People v. Spencer (1967) 66 Cal.2d 158, 167 [ 57 Cal.Rptr. 163 , 424 P.2d 715 ]; People v. Johnson (1969) 70 Cal.2d 541, 547 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 401 , 450 P.2d 865 , 43 A.L.R.3d 366 ], disapproved on other grounds in People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 899, fn. 8 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 786 , 558 P.2d 872 ]; see also In re Pablo C. (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 984, 989 [ 181 Cal.Rptr. 468 ]; People v. Celaya (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 665, 673 [ 236 Cal.Rptr. 489 ]; People v. Underwood (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 1223, 1233 [ 226 Cal.Rptr. 840 ].) Upon arresting defendant, Deputy Baker failed to advise him of his

1988(See People v. Spencer (1967) 66 Cal.2d 158, 167 [ 57 Cal.Rptr. 163 , 424 P.2d 715 ]; People v. Johnson (1969) 70 Cal.2d 541, 547 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 401 , 450 P.2d 865 , 43 A.L.R.3d 366 ], disapproved on other grounds in People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 899, fn. 8 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 786 , 558 P.2d 872 ]; see also In re Pablo C. (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 984, 989 [ 181 Cal.Rptr. 468 ]; People v. Celaya (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 665, 673 [ 236 Cal.Rptr. 489 ]; People v. Underwood (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 1223, 1233 [ 226 Cal.Rptr. 840 ].) Upon arresting defendant, Deputy Baker failed to advise him of his

1988(See People v. Spencer (1967) 66 Cal.2d 158, 167 [ 57 Cal.Rptr. 163 , 424 P.2d 715 ]; People v. Johnson (1969) 70 Cal.2d 541, 547 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 401 , 450 P.2d 865 , 43 A.L.R.3d 366 ], disapproved on other grounds in People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 899, fn. 8 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 786 , 558 P.2d 872 ]; see also In re Pablo C. (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 984, 989 [ 181 Cal.Rptr. 468 ]; People v. Celaya (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 665, 673 [ 236 Cal.Rptr. 489 ]; People v. Underwood (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 1223, 1233 [ 226 Cal.Rptr. 840 ].) Upon arresting defendant, Deputy Baker failed to advise him of his

1988(See People v. Spencer (1967) 66 Cal.2d 158, 167 [ 57 Cal.Rptr. 163 , 424 P.2d 715 ]; People v. Johnson (1969) 70 Cal.2d 541, 547 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 401 , 450 P.2d 865 , 43 A.L.R.3d 366 ], disapproved on other grounds in People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 899, fn. 8 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 786 , 558 P.2d 872 ]; see also In re Pablo C. (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 984, 989 [ 181 Cal.Rptr. 468 ]; People v. Celaya (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 665, 673 [ 236 Cal.Rptr. 489 ]; People v. Underwood (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 1223, 1233 [ 226 Cal.Rptr. 840 ].) Upon arresting defendant, Deputy Baker failed to advise him of his

1988(See People v. Spencer (1967) 66 Cal.2d 158, 167 [ 57 Cal.Rptr. 163 , 424 P.2d 715 ]; People v. Johnson (1969) 70 Cal.2d 541, 547 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 401 , 450 P.2d 865 , 43 A.L.R.3d 366 ], disapproved on other grounds in People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 899, fn. 8 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 786 , 558 P.2d 872 ]; see also In re Pablo C. (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 984, 989 [ 181 Cal.Rptr. 468 ]; People v. Celaya (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 665, 673 [ 236 Cal.Rptr. 489 ]; People v. Underwood (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 1223, 1233 [ 226 Cal.Rptr. 840 ].) Upon arresting defendant, Deputy Baker failed to advise him of his

1988(See People v. Spencer (1967) 66 Cal.2d 158, 167 [ 57 Cal.Rptr. 163 , 424 P.2d 715 ]; People v. Johnson (1969) 70 Cal.2d 541, 547 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 401 , 450 P.2d 865 , 43 A.L.R.3d 366 ], disapproved on other grounds in People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 899, fn. 8 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 786 , 558 P.2d 872 ]; see also In re Pablo C. (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 984, 989 [ 181 Cal.Rptr. 468 ]; People v. Celaya (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 665, 673 [ 236 Cal.Rptr. 489 ]; People v. Underwood (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 1223, 1233 [ 226 Cal.Rptr. 840 ].) Upon arresting defendant, Deputy Baker failed to advise him of his

1988(See People v. Spencer (1967) 66 Cal.2d 158, 167 [ 57 Cal.Rptr. 163 , 424 P.2d 715 ]; People v. Johnson (1969) 70 Cal.2d 541, 547 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 401 , 450 P.2d 865 , 43 A.L.R.3d 366 ], disapproved on other grounds in People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 899, fn. 8 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 786 , 558 P.2d 872 ]; see also In re Pablo C. (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 984, 989 [ 181 Cal.Rptr. 468 ]; People v. Celaya (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 665, 673 [ 236 Cal.Rptr. 489 ]; People v. Underwood (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 1223, 1233 [ 226 Cal.Rptr. 840 ].) Upon arresting defendant, Deputy Baker failed to advise him of his

1988(See People v. Spencer (1967) 66 Cal.2d 158, 167 [ 57 Cal.Rptr. 163 , 424 P.2d 715 ]; People v. Johnson (1969) 70 Cal.2d 541, 547 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 401 , 450 P.2d 865 , 43 A.L.R.3d 366 ], disapproved on other grounds in People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 899, fn. 8 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 786 , 558 P.2d 872 ]; see also In re Pablo C. (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 984, 989 [ 181 Cal.Rptr. 468 ]; People v. Celaya (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 665, 673 [ 236 Cal.Rptr. 489 ]; People v. Underwood (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 1223, 1233 [ 226 Cal.Rptr. 840 ].) Upon arresting defendant, Deputy Baker failed to advise him of his

1988(See People v. Spencer (1967) 66 Cal.2d 158, 167 [ 57 Cal.Rptr. 163 , 424 P.2d 715 ]; People v. Johnson (1969) 70 Cal.2d 541, 547 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 401 , 450 P.2d 865 , 43 A.L.R.3d 366 ], disapproved on other grounds in People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 899, fn. 8 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 786 , 558 P.2d 872 ]; see also In re Pablo C. (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 984, 989 [ 181 Cal.Rptr. 468 ]; People v. Celaya (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 665, 673 [ 236 Cal.Rptr. 489 ]; People v. Underwood (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 1223, 1233 [ 226 Cal.Rptr. 840 ].) Upon arresting defendant, Deputy Baker failed to advise him of his

1988(See People v. Spencer (1967) 66 Cal.2d 158, 167 [ 57 Cal.Rptr. 163 , 424 P.2d 715 ]; People v. Johnson (1969) 70 Cal.2d 541, 547 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 401 , 450 P.2d 865 , 43 A.L.R.3d 366 ], disapproved on other grounds in People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 899, fn. 8 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 786 , 558 P.2d 872 ]; see also In re Pablo C. (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 984, 989 [ 181 Cal.Rptr. 468 ]; People v. Celaya (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 665, 673 [ 236 Cal.Rptr. 489 ]; People v. Underwood (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 1223, 1233 [ 226 Cal.Rptr. 840 ].) Upon arresting defendant, Deputy Baker failed to advise him of his

1988(See People v. Spencer (1967) 66 Cal.2d 158, 167 [ 57 Cal.Rptr. 163 , 424 P.2d 715 ]; People v. Johnson (1969) 70 Cal.2d 541, 547 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 401 , 450 P.2d 865 , 43 A.L.R.3d 366 ], disapproved on other grounds in People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 899, fn. 8 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 786 , 558 P.2d 872 ]; see also In re Pablo C. (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 984, 989 [ 181 Cal.Rptr. 468 ]; People v. Celaya (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 665, 673 [ 236 Cal.Rptr. 489 ]; People v. Underwood (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 1223, 1233 [ 226 Cal.Rptr. 840 ].) Upon arresting defendant, Deputy Baker failed to advise him of his