People v. Cravens

California Court of Appeal Jan 2, 1953 No. Crim. 2858Published

Before: Nourse

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a trial court's attempt to suspend the execution of a sentence without granting probation is void, but the underlying sentence remains valid and enforceable. Furthermore, the court affirmed the denial of the defendant's motions, finding no evidence that his guilty plea was procured through fraud or duress.

Issues

Whether a trial court has the authority to suspend the execution of a sentence without granting probation.
Whether a defendant may withdraw a guilty plea on the grounds of duress when the record indicates the plea was part of a negotiated agreement.
Whether the trial court erred in denying motions to set aside a sentence revocation and to withdraw a guilty plea without a full evidentiary hearing.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“All these cases hold that a court has no power to suspend the execution of a sentence otherwise than by granting probation and that if the court tries to do otherwise the suspension is void.”

“We must hold, therefore, that the revocation was correct irrespective of the validity of the suspension.”

“The record fails to disclose that the plea of guilty was procured by any fraud or misrepresentations.”

[202]

NOURSE, P. J.

Defendant appeals from two orders made June 6, 1952, denying two motions made by him. One was to set aside an order of June 22,1950, revoking the suspension of sentence, which suspended sentence had been imposed on July 11, 1947, the other to permit appellant to withdraw a plea of guilty made on June 22, 1950, as to a count of violation of section 476(a), Penal Code, (issuing check without sufficient funds) on the basis of which plea he had been sentenced and the suspension of the prior sentence has been revoked.

In 1946-1947 appellant had been found guilty of two counts of grand theft (false pretenses). In

People

Cravens

(May, 1947), 79 Cal.App.2d 658 [180 P.2d 453], this court affirmed the conviction on one count but reversed the conviction on the other, because it related to the formation by appellant of a partnership with his victim and there was not sufficient evidence as to the separate amounts which he appropriated from that partnership. During said appeal appellant remained in jail. When after said decision appellant appeared in the superior court for sentence his motion for probation was denied, but because he had been in jail for 16 months the court ruled that he had been sufficiently incarcerated. On July 11, 1947, on motion of the district attorney the count involved in the reversal was dismissed and on the count affirmed appellant was sentenced to San Quentin, but sentence suspended “on the condition of his having served sixteen months and on further condition that he make complete and final restitution ... or satisfy the complainant.” The court stated that the matter was not to be handled by the Probation Department and that appellant was “finally released.”

On May 26, 1950, appellant in a new information was charged with two counts of other felonies and one count of issuing checks without sufficient funds (§ 476(a), Pen. Code). Appellant was held to answer on all three counts. The district attorney also moved to revoke the probation allegedly granted on July 11, 1947. His attorney made a tentative agreement that appellant would plead guilty to the section 476(a) count, that the other two counts would be dismissed, that the suspension of the earlier sentence would be revoked but that said sentence and the one as to 476(a) would be made to run concurrently. Appellant and the judge consented to this arrangement and on June 22, 1950, appellant was sentenced accordingly. After having tried more than once unsuccessfully to obtain his release on habeas corpus or

People v. Cravens

AI Brief

NOURSE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief