People v. Sanford

California Court of Appeal Apr 13, 1988 No. 25017Published

Before: Woods

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the offense of barratry is committed upon the filing of the third groundless judicial proceeding, and the statute of limitations begins to run from that date.

Issues

Whether the crime of barratry requires more than one groundless judicial proceeding.
Whether the complaint was jurisdictionally defective based on the statute of limitations.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We hold that the offense of barratry is committed when the third groundless judicial proceeding is filed (see Pen. Code, § 159) and that the statute of limitations runs from the date of the filing of the third proceeding.”

“By defining the crime as the "practice," rather than the "act," of exciting groundless judicial proceedings, the Legislature made clear its intent that there be multiple suits.”

202 Cal.App.3d 1 (1988) 249 Cal. Rptr. 279 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

ARTHUR FRANK SANFORD, Defendant and Appellant.

Docket No. 25017. Court of Appeals of California, Appellate Department, Superior Court, Los Angeles.

April 13, 1988. [2] COUNSEL

Salvatore Coco for Defendant and Appellant.

Ira Reiner, District Attorney, and Arnold T. Guminski, Deputy District Attorney, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

[3] OPINION

WOODS, J.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant was charged by misdemeanor complaint, executed on December 10, 1986, with a violation of Penal Code section 159, barratry, alleged to have been committed "on or about and between June 4, 1985 and July 17, 1986." Appellant entered a plea of nolo contendere on December 17, 1986, at which time probation was denied and appellant was fined $1,000.

On December 29, 1986, the court vacated and set aside the December 17, 1986, conviction and sentence, upon discovery by the prosecution that section 159 of the Penal Code pertained to the proof required to convict for the offense of barratry but that the offense itself was delineated in section 158 of the Penal Code. The complaint was amended accordingly upon motion by the People. Appellant again entered a plea of nolo contendere, was convicted, and placed on three years summary probation and filed $500.

DISCUSSION

(1a) Appellant contends that the complaint was jurisdictionally defective on its face since the crime charged (barratry pursuant to Pen. Code, § 158) was not filed within one year of the offense as required by Penal Code section 802, subdivision (a).[1] The complaint alleges that the crime occurred "on or about and between June 4, 1985 and July 17, 1986." The complaint was filed on December 10, 1986.

People v. Sanford

AI Brief

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

DISCUSSION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOTES

AI Brief