In Re Clausen

California Court of Appeal May 21, 1936 No. Crim. 1896Published

Before: Spence

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that Penal Code section 1203a, which allows courts to suspend misdemeanor sentences for up to two years, was not repealed by the enactment of section 1203.1 in 1935. Consequently, the petitioner's commitment to jail after the expiration of six months was valid.

Issues

Whether Penal Code section 1203a was repealed by implication by the enactment of section 1203.1 in 1935.
Whether a justice's court has jurisdiction to suspend the execution of a misdemeanor sentence for a period exceeding six months.

Disposition. remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Section 1203a, as enacted in 1933, was not expressly repealed in 1935 and there is no justification for the claim that it was repealed by implication by the enactment of section 1203.1.”

“The writ is discharged and the petitioner is remanded to custody.”

[247]

SPENCE, J.

Petitioner seeks his release from the county jail of Monterey County to which he was committed for sixty days.

On August 29,1935, petitioner entered a plea of guilty to a charge of misdemeanor for which the maximum possible term of sentence was six months. (Pen. Code, sec. 19.) He was thereupon sentenced to the county jail for sixty days, but sentence was suspended and he was placed upon probation upon certain conditions for a period of two years. One of said conditions was the payment of certain money to the state labor commissioner. The time for the payment was extended from time to time, but petitioner failed to comply and on April 3, 1936, petitioner was committed to the county jail for the sixty-day period.

The sole contention of petitioner is that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the justice’s court to suspend the execution of sentence for more than six months and that the commitment of petitioner to the county jail after the expiration of six months was invalid. In our opinion, petitioner’s contention is without merit. Section 1203a of the Penal Code was added in 1933 and courts having jurisdiction over misdemeanor cases were thereby empowered “to suspend the imposing or the execution of the sentence, and to make and enforce the terms of probation for a period not to exceed two years”.

Petitioner takes the position that section 1203.1 of the Penal Code, as enacted in 1935, had the effect of repealing said section 1203a, but we believe that petitioner’s position is untenable. In 1933, section 1203 of the Penal Code was a long section containing several numbered subdivisions. It dealt with the general subject of probation. Subdivision 1 thereof provided, “The court, judge or justice thereof, in the order granting probation, may suspend the imposing, or the execution of sentence and may direct that such suspension may continue for such period of time not exceeding the maximum possible term of such sentence,

except as hereinafter set forth,

and upon such terms and conditions as it shall determine”. (Italics ours.) When said section 1203a was added in 1933, an exception was thereby made with respect to courts having jurisdiction over misdemeanor cases and said courts were permitted to suspend the execution of sentence for a period not to exceed two years even though the maximum possible term of sentence was less than two

In Re Clausen

AI Brief

SPENCE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief