Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
DON E. LAUGHRIDGE
(SBN 85238)
833 Franklin St., Suite 4
Napa, Ca. 94559
(707) 255-3535
CONCLUSION
WORD COUNT
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
FEDERAL CASES
A~izonav. Fthiinarite (1991) 499 U.S. 279, 111 S.Ct.
1246,1265,113 L.Ed.2d 302,332
CALIFORNIA CASES
I72 re Estate of Homian 265 Cal.App.2d 796,71 Cal.Rptr.
780 (Cal.App. 1968)
Even though the trial judge was courteous, patient and attentive to
what he thought were erroneous arguments being put forth by appellant at
trial of this case, the appellant was effectively denied his rights under the
First and Sixth Amendment to give testimony in his own behalf. Even
though the failure to ask defendant if he wanted to testify or the failure to
inform him that it was his time to testify (if he wanted) was most likely
inadvertent, the failure was structural error and is reversible per se.
ZI,
DID THE HONORABLE MONIQUE LANGHORNE-JOHNSON
COMMIT ERROR BY NOT CONSIDERING SUA SPONTE
APPELLANT'S MOTION TO QUASH AS EITHER A COMMON
LAW SUPPRESSION MOTION OR A MOTION IN ARREST OF
JUDGMENT?
In People v. Suva (1987) 190 Cal. App. 3d 935, it was held that
Vehicle Code infractions are not crimes.
The trial judge cited 5 19.7 of the Penal Code for the proposition that
infractions under the Vehicle Code are subject to the same treatment as
misdemeanors under the Penal Code. This was erroneous because the
beginning language of that section states that such treatment can be had
only as "Except as otherwise provided by law.. ." The California Vehicle
Code 5 40300.5 provicks that an arrest without a warrant can only be
effected in certain circuinstances:
>
.
VI.
CONCLUSION
The appellant was denied his day in court on at least two occasions.
First, on December 22, 2009, his motion to quash was denied by
Commissioner Langhome-Johnson and he was not accorded an evidentiary
hearing. While the motion to quash appeared peculiar (a civil motion filed
in a criminal action), its gravamen was entirely appropriate and the motion
C,
raised legitimate issues for consideration by the Court. The Court should
have exercised its discretion to hear and decide the motion to quash either
as a common law motion to suppress, a Penal Code 51538.5 motion or a
motion in arrest of judgment.
Second, at his trial on March 8,2010, defendant did not testify in his
own defense. The right to testify for one's self in a criminal case is a
fundamental right. It was the duty of the trial judge to protect that
fimdamental right but he failed to do so. This was structural error and
undermines any confidence in the justness and fairness of appellant's hial.
The verdict of guilty 0x1 Counts 2 and 3 should be set aside and the case
remanded for filrtlier proceedings which protect the fully panoply of
appellant's rights. Such findings should be included in the remittitt~ras the
Appellate Department deems meet and proper.
Dated: 8-23-10
Attorney at Law
CERTIFICATION OF NUMBER OF WORDS IN BRIEF
DON E. LAUGHRIDGE
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
PROOF OF PERSONAL SERVICE
I, DON E. LAUGHRIDGE, declare:
I am a citizen of the United States and am over the age of eighteen (18)
years. I am not a party t o this action. My business address is:
DONE. LAUGHRIDGE, Attorney at Law, 833 Franklin St., Suite 4, Napa, Ca.
94559.
DON E. LAUGHRIDGE