People v. Fields

California Court of Appeal Oct 15, 1948 No. Crim. 4222Published

Before: Doran

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant has a constitutional right to counsel during the pronouncement of judgment, and because the trial court sentenced the defendant without counsel after revoking probation, the judgment must be reversed for proper rearraignment and sentencing.

Issues

Whether a defendant's acquittal on two counts precludes a guilty verdict on a third count arising from the same transaction.
Whether a defendant has a constitutional right to counsel at the time of sentencing when judgment was not previously pronounced.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The sole question involved is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the judgment of guilty as to the one count; whether it is sufficient or would have been sufficient to support a judgment of guilty of either or both of the other counts”

“Inasmuch as the arraignment for judgment and pronouncing of judgment are clearly a phase of “criminal prosecutions,” the defendant herein was denied that constitutional right.”

“In the within action judgment was pronounced without arraignment for judgment and in the absence of defendant’s counsel which was error.”

DORAN, J.

This is an appeal from the judgment.

Defendant was charged by information in three counts with (1) grand theft of an automobile; (2) taking the same automobile without the consent of the owner in violation of section 503 of the Vehicle Code, and (3) with grand theft of the automobile tires on the same car.

Defendant was adjudged guilty of Count I, to wit, the theft of the ear, and not guilty of the other counts. Permission was granted to file an application for probation. At the hearing on the application on April 26, 1945, the defendant was arraigned for judgment and asked, “Is there any legal cause why sentence should not be pronounced?” to which defendant’s counsel replied, “No.” No judgment was pronounced; the matter was disposed of as follows: “Proceedings are suspended and the defendant is placed on probation for a period of five years, on condition that the first eight months be spent in the custody of the Sheriff, with good time allowed, if earned, and the road camp recommended, and that he follow such other requirements as the Probation Department shall set up for him. The other two counts are dismissed.” On August 9, 1945, the order was modified and the defendant released from custody to remain on probation for five years. On December 23, 1947, the above order was revoked, at which time the defendant, who was present in court without counsel, was sentenced. There was no arraignment for judgment; the trial judge merely stated, “The defendant is now sentenced to the State Prison for the term prescribed by law, and is now committed into the custody of the Sheriff for transportation to the Warden and execution of the judgment. Chino is recommended. This sentence will run concurrently with the one in the County Jail he is now serving.”

It is contended on appeal that, “since the Court found defendant not guilty of a violation of Section 503 of the Vehicle Code, it could not find defendant guilty of grand theft as charged in Count I”; the same argument is applied to the not guilty judgment as to Count III. It is also urged that inasmuch as ‘1 The evidence was held to be insufficient to support a violation of section 503 of the Vehicle Code” and the offense alleged in Count III, therefore “the evidence was in

[32]

sufficient to support the charge of grand theft alleged in Count I.”

People v. Fields

AI Brief

DORAN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief