cannot accept waiver in California

18 California opinions name it 3 courts 1952–1979 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (18)

Case	Followed	Cited
In Re Jamesgreen cal · 1952 · cited in 17 California opinions naming this issue, 1961–1979 2 sentences 1979In order for a trial judge to determine whether there has been a competent and intelligent waiver of counsel, he must first ascertain whether the defendant clearly understands the nature and effect of his waiver.’ More particularly, ‘the court cannot accept a waiver of counsel from anyone accused of a serious public offense without first determining that he “understands the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses which may be available, or the punishments which may be exacted.’ (In re James (1952) 38 Cal.2d 302, 313 . . ..)” ( 62 Cal.2d at p. 335 , italics add 1971(In re Fresquez, supra; Johnson v. Zerbst, supra, at p. 464 [ 82 L.Ed. at p. 1466 ].) “. . . the court cannot accept a waiver of counsel from anyone accused of a serious public offense without first determining that he ‘understands the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses which may be available, or the punishments which may be exacted.’ [Citations.]” (Italics added; In re James, 38 Cal.2d 302, 313 [ 240 P.2d 596 ]; People v. Carter, 66 Cal.2d 666, 672 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 614 , 427 P.2d 214 ]; In re Johnson, 62 Cal.2d 325, 335 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 228 , 398 P.2d 420 ];	16	17
In Re Johnsongreen cal · 1965 · cited in 8 California opinions naming this issue, 1967–1979 2 sentences 1979In order for a trial judge to determine whether there has been a competent and intelligent waiver of counsel, he must first ascertain whether the defendant clearly understands the nature and effect of his waiver.’ More particularly, ‘the court cannot accept a waiver of counsel from anyone accused of a serious public offense without first determining that he “understands the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses which may be available, or the punishments which may be exacted.’ (In re James (1952) 38 Cal.2d 302, 313 . . ..)” ( 62 Cal.2d at p. 335 , italics add 1971(In re Fresquez, supra; Johnson v. Zerbst, supra, at p. 464 [ 82 L.Ed. at p. 1466 ].) “. . . the court cannot accept a waiver of counsel from anyone accused of a serious public offense without first determining that he ‘understands the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses which may be available, or the punishments which may be exacted.’ [Citations.]” (Italics added; In re James, 38 Cal.2d 302, 313 [ 240 P.2d 596 ]; People v. Carter, 66 Cal.2d 666, 672 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 614 , 427 P.2d 214 ]; In re Johnson, 62 Cal.2d 325, 335 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 228 , 398 P.2d 420 ];	7	8
People v. Chessergreen cal · 1947 · cited in 6 California opinions naming this issue, 1952–1968 2 sentences 1968(People v. Ruiz, 263 Cal.App.2d 216, 220-221 [ 69 Cal.Rptr. 473 ]; People v. Hernandez, 209 Cal.App.2d 33, 37-38 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 640 ].) It is true that in In re James, 38 Cal.2d 302, 313 [ 240 P.2d 596 ] the Supreme Court states: “Moreover, the court cannot accept a waiver of counsel from anyone accused of a serious 511 public offense without first determining that he ‘understands the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses which may be available, or the punishments which may be exacted. ’ (People v. Chesser, 29 Cal.2d 815, 822 [178 P.2d 761]; Uveges v. Penns 1968(People v. Ruiz, 263 Cal.App.2d 216, 220-221 [ 69 Cal.Rptr. 473 ]; People v. Hernandez, 209 Cal.App.2d 33, 37-38 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 640 ].) It is true that in In re James, 38 Cal.2d 302, 313 [ 240 P.2d 596 ] the Supreme Court states: “Moreover, the court cannot accept a waiver of counsel from anyone accused of a serious 511 public offense without first determining that he ‘understands the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses which may be available, or the punishments which may be exacted. ’ (People v. Chesser, 29 Cal.2d 815, 822 [178 P.2d 761]; Uveges v. Penns	6	6
People v. Cartergreen cal · 1967 · cited in 4 California opinions naming this issue, 1967–1971 2 sentences 1971(In re Fresquez, supra; Johnson v. Zerbst, supra, at p. 464 [ 82 L.Ed. at p. 1466 ].) “. . . the court cannot accept a waiver of counsel from anyone accused of a serious public offense without first determining that he ‘understands the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses which may be available, or the punishments which may be exacted.’ [Citations.]” (Italics added; In re James, 38 Cal.2d 302, 313 [ 240 P.2d 596 ]; People v. Carter, 66 Cal.2d 666, 672 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 614 , 427 P.2d 214 ]; In re Johnson, 62 Cal.2d 325, 335 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 228 , 398 P.2d 420 ]; 1971(In re Fresquez, supra; Johnson v. Zerbst, supra, at p. 464 [ 82 L.Ed. at p. 1466 ].) “. . . the court cannot accept a waiver of counsel from anyone accused of a serious public offense without first determining that he ‘understands the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses which may be available, or the punishments which may be exacted.’ [Citations.]” (Italics added; In re James, 38 Cal.2d 302, 313 [ 240 P.2d 596 ]; People v. Carter, 66 Cal.2d 666, 672 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 614 , 427 P.2d 214 ]; In re Johnson, 62 Cal.2d 325, 335 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 228 , 398 P.2d 420 ];	3	4
Uveges v. Pennsylvaniagreen scotus · 1948 · cited in 3 California opinions naming this issue, 1952–1968 2 sentences 1968(People v. Ruiz, 263 Cal.App.2d 216, 220-221 [ 69 Cal.Rptr. 473 ]; People v. Hernandez, 209 Cal.App.2d 33, 37-38 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 640 ].) It is true that in In re James, 38 Cal.2d 302, 313 [ 240 P.2d 596 ] the Supreme Court states: “Moreover, the court cannot accept a waiver of counsel from anyone accused of a serious 511 public offense without first determining that he ‘understands the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses which may be available, or the punishments which may be exacted. ’ (People v. Chesser, 29 Cal.2d 815, 822 [178 P.2d 761]; Uveges v. Penns 1968(People v. Ruiz, 263 Cal.App.2d 216, 220-221 [ 69 Cal.Rptr. 473 ]; People v. Hernandez, 209 Cal.App.2d 33, 37-38 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 640 ].) It is true that in In re James, 38 Cal.2d 302, 313 [ 240 P.2d 596 ] the Supreme Court states: “Moreover, the court cannot accept a waiver of counsel from anyone accused of a serious 511 public offense without first determining that he ‘understands the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses which may be available, or the punishments which may be exacted. ’ (People v. Chesser, 29 Cal.2d 815, 822 [178 P.2d 761]; Uveges v. Penns	3	3
Johnson v. Zerbstgreen scotus · 1938 · cited in 3 California opinions naming this issue, 1963–1971 2 sentences 1971(In re Fresquez, supra; Johnson v. Zerbst, supra, at p. 464 [ 82 L.Ed. at p. 1466 ].) “. . . the court cannot accept a waiver of counsel from anyone accused of a serious public offense without first determining that he ‘understands the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses which may be available, or the punishments which may be exacted.’ [Citations.]” (Italics added; In re James, 38 Cal.2d 302, 313 [ 240 P.2d 596 ]; People v. Carter, 66 Cal.2d 666, 672 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 614 , 427 P.2d 214 ]; In re Johnson, 62 Cal.2d 325, 335 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 228 , 398 P.2d 420 ]; 1963People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 463 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913]; In re James, 38 Cal.2d 302, 313 [ 240 P.2d 596 ]; People v. Chesser, 29 Cal.2d 815, 821 [ 178 P.2d 761 , 170 A.L.R. 246 ]; and Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 465 [ 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed 1461, 1467, 146 A.L.R. 357 , 362], stand for the proposition that “the court cannot accept a waiver of counsel from anyone accused of a serious public offense without first determining that he ‘understands the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses which may be available, or the punishments which may be	2	3
In Re Sheridangreen calctapp · 1964 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1979–1979 2 sentences 1979In order for a trial judge to determine whether there has been a competent and intelligent waiver of counsel, he must first ascertain whether the defendant clearly understands the nature and effect of his waiver.’ More particularly, ‘the court cannot accept a waiver of counsel from anyone accused of a serious public offense without first determining that he “understands the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses which may be available, or the punishments which may be exacted.’ (In re James (1952) 38 Cal.2d 302, 313 . . ..)” ( 62 Cal.2d at p. 335 , italics add 1979In order for a trial judge to determine whether there has been a competent and intelligent waiver of counsel, he must first ascertain whether the defendant clearly understands the nature and effect of his waiver.’ More particularly, ‘the court cannot accept a waiver of counsel from anyone accused of a serious public offense without first determining that he “understands the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses which may be available, or the punishments which may be exacted.’ (In re James (1952) 38 Cal.2d 302, 313 . . ..)” ( 62 Cal.2d at p. 335 , italics add	1	1
People v. Williamsgreen cal · 1970 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1971–1971 2 sentences 1971(In re Fresquez, supra; Johnson v. Zerbst, supra, at p. 464 [ 82 L.Ed. at p. 1466 ].) “. . . the court cannot accept a waiver of counsel from anyone accused of a serious public offense without first determining that he ‘understands the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses which may be available, or the punishments which may be exacted.’ [Citations.]” (Italics added; In re James, 38 Cal.2d 302, 313 [ 240 P.2d 596 ]; People v. Carter, 66 Cal.2d 666, 672 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 614 , 427 P.2d 214 ]; In re Johnson, 62 Cal.2d 325, 335 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 228 , 398 P.2d 420 ]; 1971(In re Fresquez, supra; Johnson v. Zerbst, supra, at p. 464 [ 82 L.Ed. at p. 1466 ].) “. . . the court cannot accept a waiver of counsel from anyone accused of a serious public offense without first determining that he ‘understands the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses which may be available, or the punishments which may be exacted.’ [Citations.]” (Italics added; In re James, 38 Cal.2d 302, 313 [ 240 P.2d 596 ]; People v. Carter, 66 Cal.2d 666, 672 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 614 , 427 P.2d 214 ]; In re Johnson, 62 Cal.2d 325, 335 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 228 , 398 P.2d 420 ];	1	1
People v. Addisongreen calctapp · 1967 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1969–1969 2 sentences 1969(See, e.g., In re Johnson (1965) 62 Cal.2d 325, 335-337 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 228 , 398 P.2d 420 ], and cases there cited.) As stated in Johnson (at p. 335), “ ‘the court cannot accept a waiver of counsel from anyone accused of a serious public offense without first determining that he “understands the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses which may be available, or the punishments which may be exacted [quoting from In re James (1952) 38 Cal.2d 302, 313 [ 240 P.2d 596 ]].” ”” ” (People v. Addison (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 18, 23 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 626 ].) With regard to de 1969(See, e.g., In re Johnson (1965) 62 Cal.2d 325, 335-337 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 228 , 398 P.2d 420 ], and cases there cited.) As stated in Johnson (at p. 335), “ ‘the court cannot accept a waiver of counsel from anyone accused of a serious public offense without first determining that he “understands the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses which may be available, or the punishments which may be exacted [quoting from In re James (1952) 38 Cal.2d 302, 313 [ 240 P.2d 596 ]].” ”” ” (People v. Addison (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 18, 23 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 626 ].) With regard to de	1	1
People v. Mattsongreen cal · 1959 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1968–1968 2 sentences 1968I, § 13; People v. Crovedi, 65 Cal.2d 199, 207-208 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 284 , 417 P.2d 868 ]; People v. Mattson, 51 Cal.2d 777, 788-789 [ 336 P.2d 937 ].) However, the court cannot accept a waiver of counsel from anyone accused of a serious public offense without first determining that he understands the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses which may be available, or the punishments which may be exacted. 1968I, § 13; People v. Crovedi, 65 Cal.2d 199, 207-208 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 284 , 417 P.2d 868 ]; People v. Mattson, 51 Cal.2d 777, 788-789 [ 336 P.2d 937 ].) However, the court cannot accept a waiver of counsel from anyone accused of a serious public offense without first determining that he understands the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses which may be available, or the punishments which may be exacted.	1	1
People v. Hernandezgreen calctapp · 1962 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1968–1968 2 sentences 1968(People v. Ruiz, 263 Cal.App.2d 216, 220-221 [ 69 Cal.Rptr. 473 ]; People v. Hernandez, 209 Cal.App.2d 33, 37-38 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 640 ].) It is true that in In re James, 38 Cal.2d 302, 313 [ 240 P.2d 596 ] the Supreme Court states: “Moreover, the court cannot accept a waiver of counsel from anyone accused of a serious 511 public offense without first determining that he ‘understands the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses which may be available, or the punishments which may be exacted. ’ (People v. Chesser, 29 Cal.2d 815, 822 [178 P.2d 761]; Uveges v. Penns 1968(People v. Ruiz, 263 Cal.App.2d 216, 220-221 [ 69 Cal.Rptr. 473 ]; People v. Hernandez, 209 Cal.App.2d 33, 37-38 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 640 ].) It is true that in In re James, 38 Cal.2d 302, 313 [ 240 P.2d 596 ] the Supreme Court states: “Moreover, the court cannot accept a waiver of counsel from anyone accused of a serious 511 public offense without first determining that he ‘understands the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses which may be available, or the punishments which may be exacted. ’ (People v. Chesser, 29 Cal.2d 815, 822 [178 P.2d 761]; Uveges v. Penns	1	1
In Re Smileygreen cal · 1967 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1968–1968 2 sentences 1968In order for a trial judge to determine whether there has been a competent and intelligent waiver of counsel, he must first ascertain whether the defendant clearly understands the nature and effect of his waiver. ’ More particularly, ‘ the court cannot accept a waiver of counsel from anyone accused of a serious public offense without first determining that he “understands the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses which may be available, or the punishments which may be exacted.” ’ (In re James (1952) 38 Cal.2d 302, 313 [ 240 P.2d 596 ].)” (Italics ours.) (In 1968In order for a trial judge to determine whether there has been a competent and intelligent waiver of counsel, he must first ascertain whether the defendant clearly understands the nature and effect of his waiver. ’ More particularly, ‘ the court cannot accept a waiver of counsel from anyone accused of a serious public offense without first determining that he “understands the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses which may be available, or the punishments which may be exacted.” ’ (In re James (1952) 38 Cal.2d 302, 313 [ 240 P.2d 596 ].)” (Italics ours.) (In	1	1
People v. Ruizgreen calctapp · 1968 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1968–1968 2 sentences 1968(People v. Ruiz, 263 Cal.App.2d 216, 220-221 [ 69 Cal.Rptr. 473 ]; People v. Hernandez, 209 Cal.App.2d 33, 37-38 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 640 ].) It is true that in In re James, 38 Cal.2d 302, 313 [ 240 P.2d 596 ] the Supreme Court states: “Moreover, the court cannot accept a waiver of counsel from anyone accused of a serious 511 public offense without first determining that he ‘understands the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses which may be available, or the punishments which may be exacted. ’ (People v. Chesser, 29 Cal.2d 815, 822 [178 P.2d 761]; Uveges v. Penns 1968(People v. Ruiz, 263 Cal.App.2d 216, 220-221 [ 69 Cal.Rptr. 473 ]; People v. Hernandez, 209 Cal.App.2d 33, 37-38 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 640 ].) It is true that in In re James, 38 Cal.2d 302, 313 [ 240 P.2d 596 ] the Supreme Court states: “Moreover, the court cannot accept a waiver of counsel from anyone accused of a serious 511 public offense without first determining that he ‘understands the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses which may be available, or the punishments which may be exacted. ’ (People v. Chesser, 29 Cal.2d 815, 822 [178 P.2d 761]; Uveges v. Penns	1	1
People v. Crovedigreen cal · 1966 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1968–1968 2 sentences 1968I, § 13; People v. Crovedi, 65 Cal.2d 199, 207-208 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 284 , 417 P.2d 868 ]; People v. Mattson, 51 Cal.2d 777, 788-789 [ 336 P.2d 937 ].) However, the court cannot accept a waiver of counsel from anyone accused of a serious public offense without first determining that he understands the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses which may be available, or the punishments which may be exacted. 1968I, § 13; People v. Crovedi, 65 Cal.2d 199, 207-208 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 284 , 417 P.2d 868 ]; People v. Mattson, 51 Cal.2d 777, 788-789 [ 336 P.2d 937 ].) However, the court cannot accept a waiver of counsel from anyone accused of a serious public offense without first determining that he understands the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses which may be available, or the punishments which may be exacted.	1	1
Carnley v. Cochrangreen scotus · 1962 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1967–1967 2 sentences 1967It serves not only to determine his competence, but also to alert him to the seriousness of the action he contemplates as well as the pitfalls he mav expect to encounter.” (People v. Carter, 66 Cal.2d 666, 672 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 614 , 427 P.2d214].) The dilemma in which trial courts find themselves because of the requirement that before permitting a defendant to represent himself a determination must be made that the waiver of the right to counsel be ‘ ‘ intelligent and understanding” (Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506, 513 [ 8 L.Ed.2d 70, 75 , 82 S.Ct. 884 ] ; Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 1967It serves not only to determine his competence, but also to alert him to the seriousness of the action he contemplates as well as the pitfalls he mav expect to encounter.” (People v. Carter, 66 Cal.2d 666, 672 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 614 , 427 P.2d214].) The dilemma in which trial courts find themselves because of the requirement that before permitting a defendant to represent himself a determination must be made that the waiver of the right to counsel be ‘ ‘ intelligent and understanding” (Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506, 513 [ 8 L.Ed.2d 70, 75 , 82 S.Ct. 884 ] ; Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464	1	1
People v. Lindengreen cal · 1959 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1963–1963 2 sentences 1963People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 463 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913]; In re James, 38 Cal.2d 302, 313 [ 240 P.2d 596 ]; People v. Chesser, 29 Cal.2d 815, 821 [ 178 P.2d 761 , 170 A.L.R. 246 ]; and Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 465 [ 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed 1461, 1467, 146 A.L.R. 357 , 362], stand for the proposition that “the court cannot accept a waiver of counsel from anyone accused of a serious public offense without first determining that he ‘understands the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses which may be available, or the punishments which may be 1963People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 463 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913]; In re James, 38 Cal.2d 302, 313 [ 240 P.2d 596 ]; People v. Chesser, 29 Cal.2d 815, 821 [ 178 P.2d 761 , 170 A.L.R. 246 ]; and Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 465 [ 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed 1461, 1467, 146 A.L.R. 357 , 362], stand for the proposition that “the court cannot accept a waiver of counsel from anyone accused of a serious public offense without first determining that he ‘understands the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses which may be available, or the punishments which may be	1	1
Moore v. Michigangreen scotus · 1957 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1963–1963 2 sentences 1963People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 463 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913]; In re James, 38 Cal.2d 302, 313 [ 240 P.2d 596 ]; People v. Chesser, 29 Cal.2d 815, 821 [ 178 P.2d 761 , 170 A.L.R. 246 ]; and Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 465 [ 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed 1461, 1467, 146 A.L.R. 357 , 362], stand for the proposition that “the court cannot accept a waiver of counsel from anyone accused of a serious public offense without first determining that he ‘understands the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses which may be available, or the punishments which may be 1963People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 463 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913]; In re James, 38 Cal.2d 302, 313 [ 240 P.2d 596 ]; People v. Chesser, 29 Cal.2d 815, 821 [ 178 P.2d 761 , 170 A.L.R. 246 ]; and Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 465 [ 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed 1461, 1467, 146 A.L.R. 357 , 362], stand for the proposition that “the court cannot accept a waiver of counsel from anyone accused of a serious public offense without first determining that he ‘understands the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses which may be available, or the punishments which may be	1	1
People v. Kempgreen cal · 1961 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1963–1963 2 sentences 1963People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 463 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913]; In re James, 38 Cal.2d 302, 313 [ 240 P.2d 596 ]; People v. Chesser, 29 Cal.2d 815, 821 [ 178 P.2d 761 , 170 A.L.R. 246 ]; and Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 465 [ 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed 1461, 1467, 146 A.L.R. 357 , 362], stand for the proposition that “the court cannot accept a waiver of counsel from anyone accused of a serious public offense without first determining that he ‘understands the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses which may be available, or the punishments which may be 1963People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 463 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913]; In re James, 38 Cal.2d 302, 313 [ 240 P.2d 596 ]; People v. Chesser, 29 Cal.2d 815, 821 [ 178 P.2d 761 , 170 A.L.R. 246 ]; and Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 465 [ 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed 1461, 1467, 146 A.L.R. 357 , 362], stand for the proposition that “the court cannot accept a waiver of counsel from anyone accused of a serious public offense without first determining that he ‘understands the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses which may be available, or the punishments which may be	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

Case	Cited	Years
Bowman v. Bowman green cal · 1947 2 sentences 1963People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 463 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913]; In re James, 38 Cal.2d 302, 313 [ 240 P.2d 596 ]; People v. Chesser, 29 Cal.2d 815, 821 [ 178 P.2d 761 , 170 A.L.R. 246 ]; and Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 465 [ 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed 1461, 1467, 146 A.L.R. 357 , 362], stand for the proposition that “the court cannot accept a waiver of counsel from anyone accused of a serious public offense without first determining that he ‘understands the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses which may be available, or the punishments which may be 1962The court cannot accept a waiver of counsel from anyone accused of a serious public offense without first determining that he understands the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses which may be available, and the punishments which may be exacted (In re James, 38 Cal.2d 302, 313 [ 240 P.2d 596 ]); and the education, experience, mental competence and conduct of the accused are elements in determining whether there has been an intelligent waiver of counsel (People v. Chesser, 29 Cal.2d 815, 822 [ 178 P.2d 761 , 170 A.L.R. 246 ]).	3	1962–1968
People v. Floyd green cal · 1970 1 sentence 1970(See e.g., In re Johnson, 62 Cal.2d 325, 335-337 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 228 , 398 P.2d 420 ].) As stated in Johnson (at p. 335), “the court cannot accept a waiver of counsel from anyone accused of a serious public offense without first determining that he ‘understands the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses which may be available, or the punishments which may be exacted [quoting from In re James (1952) 38 Cal.2d 302, 313 ( 240 P.2d 596 )].’ ” (In accord, People v. Floyd, supra, 1 Cal.3d 694, 703 ; People v. Carter, 66 Cal.2d 666, 672 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 614 , 427 P.2d	1	1970–1970
People v. Powers green calctapp · 1967 2 sentences 1969In order for a trial judge to determine whether there has been a competent and intelligent waiver of counsel, he .must first ascertain whether the defendant clearly understands the nature and effect of his waiver.’ [16] More particularly, ‘the court cannot accept a waiver of counsel from anyone accused of a serious public offense without first determining that he “understands the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses which may be available, or the punishments which may be exacted.” ’ (In re James (1952) 38 Cal.2d 302, 313 [9] [ 240 P.2d 596 ].) ” People v. P 1969In order for a trial judge to determine whether there has been a competent and intelligent waiver of counsel, he .must first ascertain whether the defendant clearly understands the nature and effect of his waiver.’ [16] More particularly, ‘the court cannot accept a waiver of counsel from anyone accused of a serious public offense without first determining that he “understands the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses which may be available, or the punishments which may be exacted.” ’ (In re James (1952) 38 Cal.2d 302, 313 [9] [ 240 P.2d 596 ].) ” People v. P	1	1969–1969

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CA § Cal. Penal Code § 1018 (4) CA § Cal. Penal Code § 987 (4) CA § Cal. Penal Code § 686 (3) CA § Cal. Penal Code § 858 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check