Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

Interesting. I would like to know more of the facts. You are usually given the opportunity of "no contest", "guilty", or "not guilty".

I need more facts for why he did so. In my opinion, he looked at whatever evidence the DA had and no case, but I might be wrong. Do you have any further information you can give us?

Thanks

It sounds like you didn't have a lawyer when you were arraigned. When that happens, the court will often enter a "not guilty" plea on the defendant's behalf so that he won't waive any of his rights while he either finds a lawyer or waits for one to be appointed. Many courts will continue the arraignment without taking a plea at all, and then enter a "not guilty" plea the second time around if the defendant still doesn't have counsel.

There are also times when a defendant who has a lawyer appears too confused to make an informed plea. If the court accepted a plea other than "not guilty" under those circumstances, it might later turn out that the defendant wasn't competent when he pled, or at least that he didn't understand his rights well enough to waive them by making a different plea. That could also be what happened in your case.

You should get a lawyer ASAP if you haven't found one already. If you can't afford one, you should ask the court to appoint one for you. Trying to represent yourself would be very unwise. Laypeople often make serious mistakes in their own cases. Pleading "guilty" or "no contest" probably would have been such a mistake. The judge likely saved you from the consequences of a serious error at your arraignment, but he won't keep doing that. You need a lawyer to continue protecting you.

Good luck.