Gail v. Municipal Court

California Court of Appeal Jun 22, 1967 No. Civ. 29817Published

Before: Frampton

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A defendant who commits a fraud upon the court by concealing his true license status to secure a charge under a lesser statute cannot later claim double jeopardy or double punishment protections when the state subsequently charges him with the correct, more serious offense.

Issues

Whether Penal Code section 654 prohibits multiple prosecutions for Vehicle Code violations arising from the same act of driving.
Whether a defendant who induces a lesser charge through fraud may invoke double jeopardy protections against a subsequent prosecution for the correct, more serious offense.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It appearing from this record that the appellant has perpetrated a fraud upon the respondent court, he may not here be heard to say that he is being subjected to double punishment for the same act.”

FRAMPTON, J.

pro tem.

—All sections cited herein, un less otherwise specified, refer to sections of the Vehicle Code.

On September 5, 1964, the appellant, while driving a motor vehicle on a public highway within the Downey Judicial District of the County of Los Angeles, was cited for violating the provisions of sections 22408 (drawing another vehicle in excess of 50 miles an hour), 23123 (keeping opened receptacle containing alcoholic beverage), and 12951 (driving without license in immediate possession). On September 24, 1964, the appellant entered his plea of guilty to each of the foregoing charges, and was sentenced to pay a fine. He paid the fine imposed. Subsequently, it was discovered that on September 5, 1964, the appellant’s license to drive had been suspended or revoked. A new complaint was then filed in the Municipal Court of the Downey Judicial District, charging the appellant with violation of section 14601 (driving with knowledge that privilege is suspended or revoked). The charge of violation of section 14601 was predicated upon the same incident which gave rise to the citation issued on September 5,1964.

The appellant was ordered to appear for plea on this latter charge on January 28, 1965. At this time the appellant filed a document entitled “Plea,”*

and also a demurrer to the com

[1007]

plaint upon the grounds that the court had no jurisdiction of the offense charged. The court refused to enter the appellant’s written plea, overruled the demurrer, made an order entering a plea of not guilty on behalf of the defendant, and set the cause for a jury trial on February 16, 1965. On February 10, 1965, the appellant filed a petition for writ of prohibition to restrain the trial court from proceeding further with the trial. At the hearing the appellant agreed that no factual questions were before the court and no evidence was offered. The alternative writ was issued, and after a hearing, judgment was entered discharging the alternative writ and denying a peremptory writ. The appeal is from this judgment.

The Contentions

Gail v. Municipal Court

AI Brief

FRAMPTON, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief