People v. Kersten

California Court of Appeal Sep 29, 1943 No. Crim. 3705Published

Before: Wood (W. J.)

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the defendant's testimony regarding his inability to appear, and that the court did not lose jurisdiction to forfeit the bond because the defendant waived the statutory time for sentencing by requesting continuances.

Issues

Whether the trial court was required to accept the defendant's uncontradicted testimony regarding his physical inability to appear in court.
Whether the trial court lost jurisdiction to sentence the defendant and forfeit the bond by granting continuances beyond the statutory period for sentencing.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The testimony of defendant was such that the court was not compelled to accept it as true or be guided by it.”

“The court did not lose jurisdiction by granting defendant’s requests for continuances and the surety company was obligated to produce defendant at the time ordered by the court or pay the penalty fixed in the bond.”

[625]

WOOD (W. J.), J.

This appeal is being prosecuted by-defendant Kersten and by his surety on a bail bond from an order denying their motions to set aside an order which had been entered declaring a forfeiture of the bond.

Defendant was arraigned in the superior court on an information charging him with robbery and the action was set for trial for April 3, 1941, at which time an amended information was filed charging defendant with burglary and with four prior felony convictions. Defendant entered a plea of guilty, admitted the prior convictions and requested permission to file an application for probation. This request was granted. It was stipulated that the court should determine the degree of the offense from the report of the probation officer. On motion of defendant the matter of the hearing on the application for probation and the pronouncement of judgment and sentence was continued from time to time until January 15, 1942. Defendant was released on the bond in question on June 17, 1941. The reason advanced by' defendant for requesting the continuances was that he claimed to be working on an-invention which would be of service to the United States Government in the prosecution of the war. Although the clerk’s minutes of April 3, 1941, showed defendant’s admission of the prior convictions, it was stipulated on January 15, 1942, that the court should then determine the allegations concerning the four prior convictions from the reports submitted by the probation officer. The court thereupon found each allegation concerning the prior convictions to be true. Counsel for defendant then told the court that it was his honest opinion that defendant’s invention had merit and he again requested a continuance for ninety days. The court thereupon continued the matter of passing upon the application for probation and the pronouncement of judgment to April 2, 1942. The defendant did not appear on April 2, 1942, and the court ordered his bail forfeited. Within ninety days thereafter appellants presented the motions to set aside the order declaring the bail forfeited.

Two grounds are specified as the basis for the motions to set aside the order of forfeiture. It is alleged that at the time of the order of forfeiture defendant was “legally insane and mentally incapable to know what he was doing and was therefore mentally unable to perform any of the acts required by the bail.” At the hearing on the motions defendant testified that before April 2, 1942, he “got hit by

People v. Kersten

AI Brief

WOOD (W. J.), J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief