In Re Digiuro

100 Cal.App.2d 260 (1950) 223 P.2d 263 In re GUY DIGIURO, on Habeas Corpus.

Docket No. 4568. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division One.

November 1, 1950. Frank Desimone for Petitioner.

Ray L. Chesebro, City Attorney, Donald M. Redwine, Assistant City Attorney, and Leland C. Nielsen, Deputy City Attorney, for Respondent.

DORAN, J.

Petitioner was convicted in the municipal court of failing to register as required by a municipal ordinance which provides that certain "convicted persons" must register and was sentenced to 180 days in jail. It appears that petitioner had registered but did not reregister following a change of residence. Petitioner, in 1934, had been convicted in the federal court of passing and attempting to pass a "certain falsely made, forged and counterfeited obligation of the United States of America, to-wit: a Federal Reserve Note." The ordinance provides in part that "Any person who, subsequent to January 1, 1921, has been or hereafter is convicted of an offense "punishable as a felony in the State of California, or who has been or is hereafter convicted of any offense in any place other than the State of California, which offense, if committed in the State of California, would have been punishable as a felony ..." etc., shall register with the chief of police.

[261] It is contended that the offense of which petitioner was convicted is not a felony because the act amounts only to a violation of section 648 of the Penal Code which, for the first offense, is punishable only as a misdemeanor, hence does not come within the ordinance. Respondent however points out that the act is also a violation of section 470 of the Penal Code which is a felony. [1] It is well settled that where an act is punishable under two or more sections of the code it may be prosecuted under either. [2] But that fact which constitutes an indispensable element of the alleged crime is not included in the complaint. Moreover the complaint does not allege that petitioner was ever "convicted" of anything. The mere failure to register is not a violation. The ordinance contains numerous conditions and acts, the existence of either one or more of which are also necessary to constitute the offense. It is elementary, indeed the Constitution of the United States provides, that the accused shall be "informed of the nature and cause of the accusation" (6th Amendment). Moreover, section 952 of the Penal Code recites that the accused is entitled to a statement of the alleged offense in "words sufficient to give the accused notice of the offense of which he is accused." All that the complaint alleges is that the petitioner "being a person required to register," failed to register. The expression, "being a person required to register," obviously is merely a conclusion. Why defendant was required to register, which is the gravamen of the offense, is not alleged. Such a pleading falls far short of the elementary requirements as noted above.