People v. Root

California Court of Appeal May 16, 1961 No. Crim. 3882Published

Before: Bray

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a probationer is not entitled to notice or a hearing prior to the revocation of probation, nor is the prosecution required to produce witnesses for confrontation during such proceedings. Furthermore, the court found no abuse of discretion in revoking probation where evidence indicated the defendant engaged in criminal practices.

Issues

Was defendant entitled to notice and a hearing before revocation of probation?
Is the prosecution required to produce witnesses upon whose statements probation was revoked?
Was the evidence insufficient for revocation of probation?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the court held that the defendant was not entitled to notice or a formal hearing.”

“The court may revoke probation solely on the basis of the probation officer’s report.”

“[T]here is no abuse of discretion where it appears from the evidence that the accused has violated the conditions of probation.”

BRAY, P. J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of violation of section 276, Penal Code (soliciting a woman to submit to an abortion) which denied his motion to set aside revocation of probation and committed him to the state prison.

Questions Presented

1. Was defendant entitled to notice and a hearing before revocation of probation?

2. On the hearing of a motion either to revoke probation or to set aside an order revoking probation, is the prosecution required to produce the witnesses upon whose statements the probation was revoked ?

3. Was the evidence insufficient for revocation of probation ?

Record

April 21,1958, defendant pleaded guilty. The court placed him on probation for five years and suspended sentence during that time. A condition of probation was the payment of a fine of $150.

May 31, 1960, at the request of the probation officer, probation was revoked.

July 26, defendant was in court for sentence. At his request, sentencing was continued from time to time to September 8.

September 8, defendant moved to set aside the revocation of probation. The motion was continued from time to time until September 20, when it was denied and judgment and sentence were pronounced.

[160]

Facts

May 25, 1960, defendant, while on probation, phoned a Lillian Granger, a policewoman using a fictitious name, at a private phone number in the Homicide Bureau of the San Francisco Police Department. The call had been arranged by one Alberti, a police informant, who had told defendant that Miss Granger found it necessary to have an abortion. During the phone conversation defendant and Miss Granger discussed arrangements for the abortion. Defendant quoted a price of $1,500. She stated that she would have to discuss it with her man friend. Defendant said that he would call back that evening. The following evening defendant again phoned Miss Granger and they continued the discussion concerning the proposed abortion. Defendant agreed to talk over the price with his associates to see if the abortion could be done for $800. Defendant said that he would phone her the following evening. Following this conversation the phone number was changed and Alberti, at police direction, informed defendant that the abortion was to be taken care of in Mexico.

People v. Root

AI Brief

BRAY, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief