People v. Workman

121 Cal.App.2d 533 (1953) THE PEOPLE, Respondent,

v.

BERNARD WORKMAN, Appellant.

Crim. No. 5066. California Court of Appeals. Second Dist., Div. Two.

Nov. 25, 1953. Alexander L. Oster for Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General, and William E. James, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent.

McCOMB, J.

From a judgment of guilty of violation of the Dangerous Weapons Control Law, predicated upon defendant's plea of guilty, he appeals.

May 26, 1952, defendant was arraigned and pleaded not guilty as charged in an information charging him with robbery while armed with a deadly weapon. July 8, 1952, defendant failed to appear and bail was declared forfeited and a bench warrant was issued for his appearance. January 20, 1953, defendant was present in court, the public defender was appointed as his counsel and the case continued for trial to January 26, 1953, on which date trial was reset for March 9, 1953. On the latter date at the request of counsel for defendant, the cause was continued to April 14, 1953. On April 14, 1953, at the request of defendant, the case was continued to May 20, 1953, and again at the request of defendant, continued to May 21, 1953.

May 21, 1953, the case was called for trial and on stipulation [535] of the parties an amended information was deemed filed charging defendant with violation of the Dangerous Weapons Control Law (Deering's Gen. Laws, Act 1970, 2) only.

Defendant was arraigned on the amended information and entered a plea of guilty. He was given leave to file an application for probation, and hearing on the application for probation and judgment was set for June 4, 1953, at which time the matter was continued to June 11, 1953.

June 11, 1953, defendant's application for probation was denied and he was sentenced to the state prison for the term prescribed by law.

Questions: First: Did the filing of the amended information, eliminating the charge of robbery and substituting violation of the Dangerous Weapons Control Law, deprive defendant of any right guaranteed him by the state or federal Constitutions--specifically did it deny defendant the right of due process?