Rose v. Superior Court (People) (2000)

CLARENCE LASALLE ROSE, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest.

[Modification fn. † of Opinion (81 Cal.App.4th 564).]

THE COURT.-

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on June 12, 2000, and reported in the Official Reports (81 Cal.App.4th 564) be modified in the following particulars:

1. On page 570, the second full paragraph under the section entitled "C. An Accurate Record" is deleted in its entirety and the following is inserted in its place:

No doubt the trial court was aware that Rose was represented by counsel. Nevertheless, the minute order states, "defendant is not present in court and not represented by counsel." This language could lead one to make a reasonable, but apparently incorrect assumption: the trial court read the petition, return and traverse superficially.

The county counsel explains that this is "programmed computer language" which simply means that the matter was heard in chambers, and neither Rose's counsel nor Rose were present. Only Humpty Dumpty would find this interpretation reasonable. fn. 1 We, however, like Alice, subscribe to the more conventional view that language should say what it means. This prosaic notion is based on our abiding conviction that communication suffers when language says what it does not mean.

There is no change in judgment.

FN *. This modification requires movement of text affecting pages 570-576 of the bound volume report.

FN 1. "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.'" (Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There (1872).)