People v. Carson

PETERS, P. J.

Defendant, upon pleas of guilty, was convicted of two offenses of receiving stolen goods, and also of two prior convictions for which he had served terms in the state prison, both felonies enumerated in § 644 of the Penal Code. By the judgment he was adjudged to be an habitual criminal and sentenced to twelve years to life at Folsom, the sentences on the two offenses to run concurrently. About a year later, the defendant moved to vacate and set aside the judgment in so far as it adjudged him to be an habitual criminal. The present appeal is from the order of the trial court denying this motion.

Assuming it was within the power of the trial court to entertain the motion to vacate at the time and on the grounds now urged, we are of the opinion that such motion was properly denied.

[556]

The appellant, who appears

in propria

persona, first contends that his pleas of guilty to the two charges were obtained as a result of promises made to him by the police officer who filed the complaints, that, if the defendant would plead guilty to the charges of receiving stolen goods, no charges based on the prior convictions would be filed. So far as this contention is concerned, there is a direct conflict in the evidence. The defendant testified that such a promise had been made to him. The police officer in question when asked: “Now, did you make any such promise?”, answered, “I did not.” He was also asked: “Did you promise him that if he pleaded guilty to those two charges of Receiving Stolen Property, you would forget about the priors, or words to that effect?” He replied: “No, I did not.” In view of this direct conflict in the evidence it must be held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion on this ground. The implied finding that no such promises were made is amply supported by substantial evidence.

Appellant points out that the record shows that the charges involving the two prior convictions were added to the complaints by the superior court after the case had been certified to that court by the municipal court, and urges that there is no statutory provision authorizing the superior court to amend complaints by adding charges involving prior convictions, after the case has been certified to the superior court by the municipal court.