Jurisdictional Statement — Woods v. California

i.

ao TOPICAL INDEX

Proceedings below ......... LTO RE RET:

Grounds for invoking jurisdiction of

this court . ren, eeaundaeek.

Questions presented on appeal nae Aenea e

Statement of the case Vy On eee Paes

Came

Casper v. Brittain, 245 F.2d a Bevis ewewe ty

Connally v. General rn ee Co.,

269 U.S. 385, 46 S.Ct. 126, .

70 L.Ed. 322. ......... pees 66a eae 0RA

Diamond v. Bent, 157 Cal.App.2d _

857, 320 P.2d 621 Paee tisha hse tk cau

Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160,

62 S.Ct. 164, 86 L.Ed. 119 ......5.... iss

Ex patte Trombley, 31 Cal.2d 801,

193 P.2d 734 ..... A nr

Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399,

86 S.Ct. 518, 15 L.Ed.2d 447 ....00,......

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED®

g ; ii.

~ PABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

Cases (cont'd) . ; oes ae y Page

"Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S.60, 5

62 S.Ct. 457, 86 LEd. 680 .............. ae

Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62, Re

88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed.2d 906 ..: 2.0.20... | 4.

Haynes v. United States, 390 U. S. 85,

88 S.Ct. 722, 19 L.Ed.2d 923 + ere are

4

Inte Berry, 68 A.C. 135, 65 Cal.Rptr.273........ 4

" sIn re Levi, 39 Cal.24 41, 244 P.2d 403. eo ae

In re Newbern, 53 Cal.2d 786, 3 Cal. Rptr. 364 +

In re Osslo, $1 Cal.2d 371, 334 P.2d ere 7.

In re Stniley, 66 Cal.2d 606, 58 Cal. ptr. S70, ve 3

James Stewart & Co. v. Sadrakula, 309 U.S. 94,

60 S.Ct. 431, 84 L.Ed. 596, 127 ALR, 821. 3

Johnson v. Florida, US. , 88 S.Ct. |

___, 20 L.Ed.2d 838 = ererrer oe «6

Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458,

58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. eras ace eat ae 5

| Restuate. California, 355 US. 225, , 7

78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Bd.2d 228 ........ Sebi: oe

Lee v. Superior Court, 89 Cal. App. 2d 716, |

ee ke

cf Lontidiniin Resweber, 329 US. 459,

67 S.Ct. 374, 91 L.Ed.422°............:. 5

: TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED 7

“Cassa (cont'd) 4 : | _ Page |

" Marchetti v. United States, 390U.S.39, 9 ‘

88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889 ............. a

- McConnell v.Rhay, __US.__ , 89S.Ct. :

wh aces 5

New York ex rel. Bryant v. Zimmerman, ete

| 278 US. 63, 49 S.Ct. 61, 73 L.Ed, 184 2.5: 3

‘People v. Alves, 155 Cal.App. 2d —_ 870, -

i eh ee oo.

People v. Billingsley, 59 Cal. App. 2d ae. 845,

iW GkGk eh hb Ace 60sec ee,

People v. Davis, 48 Cal. ad 241, 309 P.2d i ee 5

People v. ‘McCaughan, 49 Cal. 2d 409,

EE CRA i ewan ia seednaccess Kew 4

People v. Saad, 105 Cal.App. 2d 851,

SE on cksscccacccsers weaned "4

4

People v. Sesslin, 68 A.C. 431, A caRptr. 409 .. #

People v. Sorensen, 68 A.C. 285, 66 Cal.Rptr.7 .. 5,6

People v. Thomas, 45 Cal.2d 433, ;

290 P.2d 491. (Ade eew aS POCA Ss eAeed wen : 7

~ People v. Williams, 27 Cal. 2d 220, | re Wee ,

PE isacsicgsnactss, @

Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, %

82 S.Ct. 1417, 8 L.Ed.2d 758 ............ . >.

Robinson v. Superior:Court; 35 Cal. 2d 379,

218 P.2d 10 SRE Oa wKkeh RRA 6b Oa s anaes 6

‘iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

) Cases (cont'd) ie \ Poe Page

Saidi-Tabatabai v. Superior Court, Ay < ‘

253 A.C.A. 303, 61 Cal.Rptr. eeeeer yee 6

Scott v. Donald, 165 U.S. 58, _

| 170 S.Ct. 265, eee. ewnswawd ie ‘2

-_- Tot'v. United States, 319U.S.463, 9 ~~ |

— , 63 S.Ct. 1241, 87 L.Bd. 1519 -........ Ses hs 4

Thompson v. Louisville, 362 US. 199, eo. :

80 S.Ct. 624, 4 L.Ed.2d 654... .. acca ee Bee,

United States v. Romano, 382 U.S. 3, | we ae

86 S.Ct. 279, 15 L.Bd.2d 210 ......:....-

Statutes (United States)

United States Constitution

Fifth Amendment ...... en ee re ‘ 4,10 .

Eighth Amendment ............... panne mee

Fourteenth Amendment: AP a ey yee -3,9,.12

28 USC. 12572) .. eee eee eee. ES Oss ee ©}

-- <$tatutes (California)

_ California Constitution

| et MTT eer eee 5,10

‘Penal Code ) ets fem,

Qectiom 198.1 \......«. ihiaucicenkee 6

+, ere re anaes 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14

kh , COT SELECT T eT Baron ,

SE Se acc eka eekes chee aan 6

na cs waldv sen svhenwenes 7

| “iv

: TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED -

Rules }

United States Supreme Court Rules

ME esc ne cic ie opens ore

OP W660 6 65's 4660 606 0qs ene sesas ‘iSenes

%

IN THE |

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1968

DALADIER ANDREW WOODS,

Defendant and No. (Undocketed)

Appellant, |

Superior Court of the

ee _ State of California for

the County of Los Angeles

- THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE Appellate Department,

OF CALIFORNIA, Case No. CR A 7977

Plaintiff and

Respondent. _ |

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

: (Rule 13(2) and 15

Rules of The United States‘Supreme Court

(a) This is an appeal taken from the Order of the Appel-

late Department of the Superior Court, County of Los Angeles,

State of California, affirming the Order made by the Municipal

Court of the Culver City Judicial District, County of Los Angeles,

‘State of California, granting to appellant probation after appel- ©

- Jant had been found guilty following a trial by jury. The Order”

“granting probation was made on April 3, 1968. The Order made

>

ae ROE +

TAR ECS ARS SRL DRL! RRR RTO gS

Ot Nts

POCORN TRS HNO Werte er

is

_ by the Appellate Department of the Superior Court of the

County of Los Angeles affirming the judgment below was

made on November 25, 1968. On December 11, 1968, the

Appellate Department of the Superior Court of the State of

California for the County of Los Angeles entered an Order

Staying The Issuance Of The Remittitur and Judgment for

a period of thirty days from December 11, 1968. On J anuary

8, 1969, the Appellate Department of. the Superior Court of

the State of California for the County of Los Angeles made

an Order further staying the issuarice of the remittitur and

judgment until January 20, 1969. There is no written opinion

and, therefore, no official or unofficial reports of the decision

rendered by the Appellate Department of the Superior Court :

of the State of California for the County of Los — affirm-

ing the Order aati Probation.’

_ (b) The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked on the

- grounds, inter alia, that the Appellate Department of the

Superior Court of the State of California for the County of

Los Angeles upheld California Penal Code section 270 against |

a claim of unconstitutionality under the federal Constitution.

Other questions raised also invoke federal constitutional ques-

tions and invoke the jurisdiction of this Court (see infra):

(i) - Appellant, DALADIER ANDREW WOODS,

was charged in a complaint filed in the Municipal Court of the

Culver City Judicial District, County of Los Angeles, State of

California, with one count of violating California Penal Code

section 270 (failure to provide).

1 For ei purpose of 28 U.S.C., sec. 1257(2), the Appellate Department of the

Superior Court of the State of California is the “highest court of the state”

Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160, 62 S.Ct. 164, 86 L.Ed. 119.

—i— 2

(ii) The judgment rendered by the Appellate Depait-

ment of the Superior Court of the State of California for the

_ County of Los Angeles (affirming the Order Granting Probation

entered by the Municipal Court of the Culver City Judicial Dis-

trict, County of Los Angeles, State. of California) was entered

on November 25, 1968. The Notice of Appeal from said judg-

ment was filed on December 10, 1968, in the Appellate Depart-

ment of the Superior Court of the State of California for the

County of Los Angeles. /

‘ (iii) Jurisdiction of this Court is conferred by Title

28, United States Code, section 1257(2).

(iv) For case authority conferring jurisdiction upon

this Court, see: :

(1) Appellate jurisdiction: New York ex rel.

Bryant v. Zimmerman, 278 U.S. 63, 67, 49 S.Ct. 61, 73 is

L.Ed. 184, 187; James Stewart & Co. v.'Sadrakula, 309

U.S. 94, 60 S.Ct. 431, 84 L.Ed. 596, 127 A.L.R. 821;

Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2

L.Ed.2d 228.

ae (2) Generally as to subsidiary questions invol-

ving constitutional issues; Scott v. Donald, 165 U.S. 58,

170 S.Ct. 265, 41 L.Ed. 632.

(3) California Penal Code sectior 270, either

~ as applied or on its face, is unconstitutional in violation. of

Amendment Fourteen to the United States —

in that:

(a) Said vetnte is so vague, indefinite

and ambiguous that men of common and ordinary

intelligence must differ as to the meaning of said

statute, specifically as to what is meant by the term -

“necessary” as applied to food, shelter and clothing,

Se a ee a

_

and the term “‘without lawful excuse” as used in

combination with the requirement of “necessity.”

Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399, 86 S.Ct. 518,

15 L.Ed.2d 447; Connally v. General Construction

é., 269 U.S. 385, 46 S.Ct. 126, 70 L.Ed:322; In

re Berry, 68 A.C. 135, 65 Cal.Rptr. 273; People v.

Saad, 105 Cal.App.2d 851, 234 P.2d 785; People v.

McCaughan, 49 Cal.2d 409, 317.P.2d 974; In re

Newbern, 53 Cal.2d 786, 3-Cal.Rptr. 364.

(b) Said statute provides that a presump-

tion of wilfully failing to provide arises from the

- mere fact-of failing to provide; consequently, there

_ is no rational connection between the presumption — |

and the facts upon which the presumption is sought

_to be based. Tot v. United States, 319 U.S. 463,

63 S.Ct. 1241, 87 L.Ed. 1519; United States v.

Romano, 382 U.S. 3, 86 S.Ct. 279, 15 L.Ed.2d 210.

(c) That portion of said statute whjch

provides: “The court, in determining the ability of

the father to support his child, shall consider all

income, — social insurance, benefits, and -

Sifts. ... .” indirectly and directly violates the privi-

‘lege mare self-incrimination (Fifth Amendment,

United States Constitution) by permitting this in-

formation to be obtained from the defendant

through the probation department. Cf. Grosso v.

United States, 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed.2d

906; Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct.

* 722, 19 L.Ed.2d 923, and Marchetti v. United States,

390 U.S..39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2¢ 889.

(d) Said statute, by sanctioning imprison-

a

ing a man for failing to provide support for a child

born out of wedlock, of whom he is alleged to. be

the father,-constitutes cruel and unusual punishment

(Eighth Amendment, United States Constitution).

Louisiana v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459, 67 S.Ct. 374,

91 L.Ed. 422; Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660,

82 S.Ct. 1417, 8 L.Ed.2d 758; Casper pv. Brittain,

245 F.2d 92.

; (e) Said statute does not contain the

word “knowingly,” i.e., there is no mandatory pro-.

vision for notice to the defendant that he may be

violating the statute prior to arrest. Lambert v. Calif-

ornia, supra, 355 U. S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d

228. :

(f) Said statute provides for i imprison-

ment for debt (which is also a violation of the Calif-

ornia Constitution, Article I, section 50). Ex parte

Trombley, 31 Cal.2d. 801, 193-P.2d 734; : People v.

- Sorensen, 68 A.C. 285, 66 Cal.Rptr.’7.

(4) Appellant was denied the right to éffective

representation by counsel when the court, at the hearing

on appellant’s Motion For New Trial and/or Judgment Of

Acquittal, inquired of appellant’s counsel whether said

counsel believed appellant’s trial testimony. Glasser y.

United States, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680;

McConnell v. Rhay,__ U.S. _"- , 89’S.Ct. , 21

L.Ed.2d 2; Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 US. 458; 58 S. S.Ct.

1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461; People v. Davis, 48 Cal.2d 241,

309 P.2d 1; In re Smiley, 66 Cal,2d 606, 58 Cal. Rptr. 571.

| (5) A defendant is denied due process of law

when, as in the instant case, evidence introduced against

btn ites

ee

him was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain the

‘conviction. Johnson v. Florida,’ _- US.___ , 88S. Ct.

, 20 L.Ed Ed.2d 838; Thomgibn v. Louisville, 362 US.

199, 80 S.Ct. 624, 4 L.Ed.2d 654.

(a) The prosecution failed to establish

two elements of the corpus delecti of the offense,

to wit, (1) what constituted the necessities of life .

under the circumstances of this case, and (2) that

appellant had the ability to pay more than he did

in fact pay. People v. Williams, 27 Cal.2d 220,

163 P.2d 692; Diamond y. Bent, 157 Cal.App.2d’

Supp. 857, 320 P.2d 621; People v. Alves, 155

Cal.App.2d Supp. 870, 320 P.2d 623.

(6) The complaint on its face was insufficient

as a mattér of law to sustain the issuance of an arrest

_ warrant, and the arrest and subsequent prosecution of

appellant was unlawful and void. As a result of the unlaw-

ful arrest of appellant, appellant was compelled to take |

the stand and produce evidence to rebut the presumption -

of guilt raised by the statute under which he was arrested.

People v. Sesslin, 68 A.C. 431, 67 Cal.Rptr. 409; People

v. Sorensen, supra, 68 A.C. 285, 66 Cal.Rptr. 7.

(7) The trial court erred in refusing to accept

jurisdiction on appellant’s Motion For Judgment Of

Acquittal, which motion was made after the conclusion

of the prosecution’s case and again on Motion For New

Trial. Penal Code séction 118.1; Saidi-Tabatabai v.

Superior Court, 253 A.C.A. 303, 61 Cal.Rptr. 510;

Robinson v. Superior Court, 35 Cal.2d 379, 218 P.2d 10,

(8) The defendant was prejudiced in that he

was not arraigned for judgment. Penal Code section 1200;

=, =

In re Levi, 39 Cai.2d 41, 244 P.2d 403; ; People v. Thomas,

45 Cal.2d 433, 290 P.2d 491.

(9) Defendant was entitled to anew trial

ae (California Penal Code section 1202) in that the court

failed to render or pronounce judgment within the time

prescribed by California Penal Code section 1191. People

v. Billingsley, 59 Cal.App.2d Supp. 845, 139 P.2d 362;

Lee v. Superior Court, 89 Cal.App.2d 716, 20 P.2d 882;

In re Osslo, 51 Cal.2d 371, 334P.2d1. ,

(v) California Penal Code section 270 is found in

Stats. 1968, c. 235, p. 2 ee section 2, and reads as follows:

“« father of either-a legitimate or illegitimate

minor child who willfully omits without lawful

excuse to furnish necessary clothing, food, shelter

or medical attendance or other remedial care for his

child is guilty of a misdemeanor and punishable by

a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($ 1,000)

or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding

one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

If the father, during such violation, remains out of

the state for 30 days, or if he fails or refuses to

comply with the order of a court of competent

jurisdiction requiring him to make any provision

for the maintenance, support, medical treatment

or other remedial care of such minor child and re-

mains gut of the state for 10 days without doing so,

he is guilty of a felony. This statute shall not be

construed so as to relieve such father from the |

criminal liability defined herein for such: omission

merely because the mother of such child is legally

entitled to the custody of such child nor because the

=

me

. mother of such child, or any other person, or organ-

ization, voluntarily or involuntarily furnishes such ®

necessary food, clothing, shelter or medical atten-

dance or other remedial care for such child, or under-

takes to do so.

“Proof of abandonment or desertion of.a child

by such father, or the omission by such father to

furnish necessary food; clothing, shelter or medical

- attendance or other remedial care for his child is

prima facie evidence that such abandonment or

desertion or omission to furnish necessary food,

clothing, shelter or medical attendance or other

remedial care is willful and without lawful excuse.

“The court, in determining the ability of the

father to support his child, shall consider all income,

including social insurance benefits and gifts.

“Proof of abandonment or desertion of a child

by such father or the omission by such father to fur-

nish such food, shelter, clothing, or medical atten-

dance or other remedial care for more than thirty

(30) days is prima facie evidence that such father was

outside the state. :

' “In the event that the father of either a legiti-

mate or illegitimate minor child is dead or for any

other reason whatsoever fails to furnish the neces-

sary food, clothing, shelter or medical attendance or

other remedial care for his minor child, the mother

_of said child shall become subject to the provisions

of this section and be criminally liable for the support

of said minor child during the period of failure on the |

part of the father to the same extent and in the same

oe

manner as the father. | pre

“The provisions of this section are applicable

whether thg parents of such child are married or

divorced, and regardless of any decree made in any

divorce action relative to alimony or to the support

‘of the child. A child conceived but not yet born is

to be deemed an existing person insofar as this sec-

tion is concerned.

“The husband of a woman who bears,a child

- asa result of artificial insemination shall be consid-

ered the father of that child for the purposes of this

section, if he consented i in nn to the artificial

insemination.”

(c) The questions presented on appeal are as follows:

(i) Whether California Penal Code section 270,

either as applied or on its face, is unconstitutional in violation

of Amendment Fourteen to the United States Constitution,

in that:

(1) Said statute we so vague, sais. and

ambiguous that men of common and ordinary intelligence

must differ as to the meaning of said statute, specifically

as to what is meant by the term “necessary” as applied

to food, shelter and clothing, and the term ‘“‘without law-

ful excuse” as used in combination with the requirement

of “necessity”?

(2) Said statute provides that a presumption

of wilfully failing to provide arises from the mere fact of

failing to provide; consequently, there is no rational

connection between the presumption and the facts upon

which the presumption is sought to de based?

oO Mlle athbaee a

me)

a

3) That portion of said statute which pro-

vides: “The court, in determining the ability of the father

‘to support his child, shall consider all income, including

social insurance, benefits and gifts. . . ” indirectly and

directly violates the privilege against self-incrimination

(Fifth Amendment, United States Constitution) by per-

“mitting this information to be obtained from defendant

through the probation department?

(4) Said’ statute, by sanctioning imprisoning

a man for failing to provide support for a child born out

of wedlock, of whom he is alleged to be the father, con-

stitutes cruel and unusual punishment (Eighth Amend-

ment, United States Constitution)?

___ (5) Said statute does not contain the word

“knowingly,” i.e., there is no mandatory provision for

notice to the defendant that he may be violating the

statute prior to arrest?

(6). Said statute provides for imprisonment

for debt (which is also a violation of California Constitu-

tion, Article I, section 50)? . | a

(ii) Whether appellant was denied the right to

effective representation by counsel when the court, at the

hearing on appellant’s Motion For New Trial and/or Judgment

. Of Acquittal,inquired of appellant’s counsel whether said

counsel believed appellant's trial testimony?

(iii) Whether a defendant is denied the due process

of law when, as in the instant case, the evidence introduced

against him was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain the

conviction?

(1) Whether the pocsscuiten failed to establish

two elements of the corpus delecti of the offense, to wit,

* abe

(a) what constituted the necessities of life under the cir-

cumstances of this case, and (b) that appellant had the

ability to pay more than he did in fact pay? - aa

(iv) Whether the complaint on its face was insuffi-

. cient as a matter of law to sustain the issuance of an arrest

warrant, and whether the arrest and subsequent prosecution

of appellant was unlawful and void? Further, whether, as a

+» result of the unlawful arrest of appellant, appellant was com-

pelled to take the stand and produce evidence to rebut the

presumption of guilt raised tied the statute danas which he was

arrested?

(v) Whether the trial court erred in siiiidiie to

accept jurisdiction on appellant's Motion. For Judgment Of .

Acquittal, which motion was made after the conclusion of '

the seca mipiegt case and again on Motion For New Trial?

. (vi) Whether the defendant was prejudiced i in

that he was not arraigned for judgment? 7

(vii) Whether defendant was entitled to a new trial?

(d) Statement of the case:

An illegitimate child was born to Gloria Glover on Feb-

' Tuary 1, 1962. Defendant was claimed to be the father. Gloria

Glover, the mother, at all times was working with the County

of Los Angels (RT 52)?. During the periods in question, the

defendant had provided her with the sum total of $ 185.00 for

the support of the child, and she “felt” that $60.00 a month

would be a reasonable amount for the support and maintenance

of the child (RT 43, 62). _ could not remember any other

2 by: in the te Departnent of he «Court ofthe State,

ornia for th was a Reporter's

mm GD. 4 Settled ws habe anda plemental Set d Statement. /

erences in this Jurisdictional Statement are to Gam documents. ‘

= =

payments made through or by Mr. Woods (RT 61). Miss

Glover’s mother indicated that additional payments had been

made to Miss Glover other than those disclosed by Miss Glover

(RT 79). Miss Glover made no record of the amount 6f Pay:

ments received (RT 61).

The defendant-was working as a doorman and maintenance

man at the®Guys and Dolls,” a nightclub. He was married and

> ‘had two children, but was sepatated from them. He made approx-

imately $400.00 per month, most of which was given to his wife

and two children for their support and maintenance; he retained

approximately $20.00 to $25.00 per week for his own support

and maintenance, which was not expensive since he was living

with his parents. (RT 102) —

Over a period of years since the date the baby was born,

defendant delivered to Miss Glover between $400.00 and $500.00

a year, including the period of time in question (RT 97). |

Both the defendant and the prosecuting witness Glover

testified that Woods gave money to her waeneee she asked for

it (RT 97).

The only and first complaint made regarding the alleged

“failure to provide” was to the District Attorney’s office around

July of 1967 (RT 61, 62). No complaint wes issued until Sept-

ember 26, 1967. . . . and there is no evidence that the defend-

ant was ever informed by the District Attorney’s office or any-

one else of the fact of the complaint by Gloria Glover until a

' physical arrest was made based upon the igsuance of the warrant.

‘Prior to trial, motions were duly made to dismiss the —

prosecution based upon the premise that Penal Code section 270

and its accompanying sections were unconstitutional in violation

of Amendment Fourteen of the United States Constitution (RT

3).

a

After conviction, the defendant was ordered to report —

to the probation officer. He did so, but refused to make any

statement except his name and address, upon advice of counsel,

contending that talking to the probation officer would be a

violation of the privilege against self-incrimination. Notwith- -

standing this objection, the defendant was subsequently order- .

ed to return to the probation officer and “cooperate” with ——

him (Settled Statement 3). ;

At the time of the hearing on the Motion For New Trial

and/or Judgment Of Acquittal, the court expressed the opinion ;

that it did not have the jurisdiction to overrule the finding of. 3

twelve jurors (Supplemental Settled Statement 2). ;

At the said hearing, the court expressed the opinion that - . :

it did not believe the appellant and inquired of appellant’s

counsel whether or not appellant’s counsel believed appeilant’s

trial testimony (Supplemental Settled Statement 3).

The court failed to arraign the appellant for. the sentence

subsequently imposed (Supplemental Settled Statement 2).

The Order Granting Probation that was actually entered

against appellant in the Municipal Court contained the follow- _

ing terms and conditions: That appellant pay a fine of $500.00 _ 4

or serve 100 days in the County Jail, of which $250.00 or 50

days were suspended, plus penalty assessment of $65.00; that

appellant serve 180 days in the Los Angeles County Jail, of

which 170 days were. suspended; that appellant maintain em-

ployment; that appellant refrain from the violation of any law

i a li a

.

_ and obey all rules and orders of thecourt; and that appellant

was ordered to pay to Gloria J ean Glows $50.00 per month

for the support and maintenance of Dietrich Woods (the child)

commencing April 10, 1968; and, further, that appellant was

ordered to file a written verification monthly with the court

. *

5 AAG ERO ILO BOK 0s SID int AR EI cas 6 Ee . sate

—14—

that the payments had been made: Execution of sentence

and probation were stayed pending appeal.

The issues-herein presented were first raised in the Muni- ©

cipal Court of the Culver City Judicial District, County of

Los Angeles, State of California. The issues were raised in a

Pretrial Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (on February 26,

1968) and in a Post-Trial Motion for a New Trial and/or Judg-

ment Of Acquittal. All of these motions were denied. The:

issues were again raised in the Opening Brief filed by appellant

" in the Appellate Department of the Superior Court of the State

of California for the County of Los Angeles. The Appellate

Department affirmed the judgment of the court below granting

probation.

_(e) The federal questions presented in this appeal are

substantial, in that appellant respectfully contends that Calif-

ornia Penal Code section 270 is unconstitutional in that it

permits a person to be fined and/or imprisoned for failing to

support his alleged illegitimate child even though said section

is vague and 4mbiguous and even though said section contains

the unconstitutional presumption that by merely failing to

provide for his minor child, it is presumed that the defendant

wilfully failed to do so.

(f) asi hereto are the following:

: (i) . Excerpt from Transcript of Docket of the Muni-

cipal Court of Culver City Judicial District, County of Los

Angeles, State of California, Daladier Andrew Woods, No.

M-11262—entry dated April 3, 1968 (Appendix “A”’).

| (ii) Judgment rendered by the Appellate Department

of the Superior Court of the State of California for the County

A Rib ewan Lut lit ih Atha nt alee tab Dl

—15——

of Los Angeles iain the Order Granting Probation enter-

ed by the Municipal Court of the Culver City Judicial District,

County of Los Angeles, State of California (Appendix “‘B”’).

(iii) Order Staying Issuance of the Remittitur and

Judgment (Appendix oe

(iv) Order Extending Stay of Issuance of Remittitur

and Judgment iain “D”).

Respectfully submitted,

BURTON MARKS, ESQ.

Attorney for Defendant and

asain

ai i it i ihe RD Kg me DBawisaes ~ sat r . : ‘

-

.

a 7

-

.

° .

a

° «

.

. -

>

.

.

. :

.

.

: bd . - = .

°

- °

- .

’

.

‘

F .

; .

P : -

, .

° “A” ,

: “pr

“co :

“PH”

Excerpt from Transcript of Docket ....

Judgment of Appellate Department’

Order Staying Issuance of Remittitur

| and Judgment ..........

Ordez Extending Stay of Issuance of

' °. Remittitur and Judgment —

APPENDIX “A”

«

-

EXCERPT FROM TRANSCRIPT OF DOCKET

In the Municipal Court of Culver City Judicial District,

County of Los Angeles, State of California. :

(Criminal) No. M-11262.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs.

DALADIER ANDREW WOODS.

3 Apr 68 HON. FRANK W. TROOST, JUDGE PRESIDING: |

Defendant in court with counsel, Burton Marks. | :

People represented by Deputy District Attorney,

Terence Moloney. Motion for new trial denied and

motion for judgment of acquittal denied. Formal

probation denied. Time waived for sentence. Im-

position of sentence suspended, defendant placed

on summary probation for three (3) years on the

following terms and conditions:

“ha Pay a fine of $500.00 + Penalty Assessment or

spend 100 days, Los Angeles County Jail;

_ $250.00 or 50 days suspended.

2. 180 days, Los Angeles County Jail; 170 days

_ suspended, balance of ten (1.0) days forthwith.

"3. Pay for support-and maintenance of Dietrich

Woods the sum of $50.00 per month directly

to Gloria Jean Glover beginning April 10, 1968

and file verification monthly. (Dietrich Woods

defendant’s minor child by Gloria Glover) -

4. No further violations of law; — rules and

orders of. court.

tyr Myre Otte

aire’ on

5. Diligently maintain employment.

APPENDIX “B”

_ JUDGMENT OF APPELLATE DEPARTMENT

Appellate Department of the Superior Court of the State

of California for the County of Los Angeles.

Superior Court No. CR A 7977..

_ PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff

and Respondent, vs. DALADIER ANDREW WOODS, Defend-

ant and Appellant. | |

¢

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the order grant-

ing probation made and entered in the Municipal Court of

Culver Judicial District, County of Los Angeles, State of Calif-

ornia, in the above-entitled cause be and the same is hereby __

affirmed. z | :

‘ DATED November 25, 1968.

BY THE COURT |

Vasey, Presiding Judge —

Wong, Judge

Smith, Judge

Oe hele al a la

APPENDIX “C”

ORDER STAYING ISSUANCE OF -

REMITTITUR AND JUDGMENT

. Appellate Department of the Superior Court of the State

of California for the County of Los-Angeles.

Superior Court No. CR A 7977.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff

_ and Respondent, vs. DALADIER ANDREW WOODS, eeeeal

ant and Appellant.

Upon notice of the intention of the appellant that he

by his counsel intends to appeal to the Supreme Court of the &

. United States from the judgment of this court, made and

entered on the 25th day of November, 1968,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that issuance of the remittitur

of this court, and the order and judgment of this court in the .

above-entitled case, be, and the same are, hereby stayed for a

period of 30 days from date hereof, unless the court orders.

otherwise.

DATED December i!, 1968.

| BY THE COURT

Whyte, Presiding Judge

Vasey, Judge

Wong, Judge

. /;

APPENDIX ad

ORDER EXTENDING STAY OF ISSUANCE |

OF REMITTITUR AND JUDGMENT

| Appellate Department of the Superior Court of the State

of California for the County of Los Angeles.

Superior Court No. CR A 7977.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff

and Respondent, vs. DALADIER ANDREW WOODS, Defend-

ant and ——

——aEe

Pursuant to foregoing prior order staying issuance of

remittitur is extended for a period of ten (10) days from

date of expiration of prior formal order.

January 8, 1969.

; Whyte, Presiding Judge

Vasey, Judge

Wong, J udge |

.

SAAR AM yin cn 1m, omaneenees?

aed

Ne

N Sade ee ee ee ener rt

~~) eh eee foe ee Ome Ne oo .

\

\

Re. \

PROOF OF SERVICE BYMAIL \

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

, ) ss

County of Los Angeles )

* I, the undersigned, say: I am and was at all times, —_ mentioned, a citizen of _

the United States and employed in the County of Los Angeles, over the age of

eighteen years and not a party to the within action or eae

My business address is 215 West Fifth Street, Los Angeles/California 90013, that

on JANUARY , 1969, I served the within JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

. (People v. Woods) on the following named parties by depositing a copy thereof,

enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United

States Post Office in the City OF Eee Anguine, California, sitrvesed to said parties |

at the addresses as follows:

COUNTY CLERK, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

111 NORTH HILL STREET

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012

FOR: APPELLATE DEPARTMENT

ATTORNEY GENERAL, ST ATE OF CALIFORNIA

600 STATE BUILDING

’ LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012

DISTRICT ATTORNEY, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

600 HALL OF JUSTICE

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012

I swear under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. |

a

Executed on JANUARY , 1969, at LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA.

manana eee es anee ee ce ee ee re ee ee ee ee se ee ee oe

D. A. Standefer

_ Subscribed and sworn. to before me . Orig. + 40 cys, via REA

= day of _, to Clerk, Supreme Court

mene oo of the United States,

Notary Public in and for the ton

State of California. . , on Pre.