PEOPLE v. JOHNSON (1971)

On May 27, 1971, 95 Cal.Rptr. 316, we filed our decision modifying and affirming the judgment in the case at bench. Appellant has filed a petition for rehearing prepared by Mervin Carlos McKinney, ‘next of friend.’ The petition raises no appropriate ground for rehearing and is denied.

Beginning on page 3 of the petition for rehearing (denominated ‘motion’), there is a threat to sue the judges of this court for monetary damages under the civil rights act unless they comply with the appellant's demand that a rehearing be granted. On page 6, we are accused of ‘moving heaven and hell in trying to cover up and protect lower court personnel,’ and of having ‘committed a dishonorable act’ in upholding the actions of the trial judge.

It seems clear that if the petition for rehearing prepared by appellant's ‘next of friend’ and filed by him had been prepared and filed by an attorney, that attorney would have been subjected to severe discipline. It is highly improper advocacy to seek an objective by a threat to the court. It is equally improper to mount a personal attack upon the members of the court where no reason exists for it. Nothing in the case law reviewed by us indicates that a ‘next of friend’ acting to protect the rights of illiterate and uneducated prisoners in lieu of other means of representation is permitted to engage in conduct which would be impermissible if performed by a lawyer. In re Harrell, 2 Cal.3d 675, 688, 87 Cal.Rptr. 504, 511, 470 P.2d 640, 647, states: ‘As we have suggested * * * it is the rights of illiterate and uneducated prisoners which are protected by Johnson (Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 89 S.Ct. 747, 21 L.Ed.2d 718)—not the assumed prerogatives of those inmates who have, for one reason or another, set themselves up as legal consultants.’

We make note of the misconduct of ‘next of friend’ with the hope that it will not occur in the future and for such other action as may be deemed proper by appropriate authorities.

THE COURT: