People v. Williams

California Court of Appeal Dec 20, 1963 No. Crim. 8928Published

Before: Kingsley

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant may stipulate to the method of proving prior convictions, but that a trial court must expressly state on the record or in writing that it has read and considered the probation report as required by Penal Code section 1203.

Issues

Whether a defendant may stipulate to the method of proving prior felony convictions.
Whether the trial court's failure to expressly state on the record that it read and considered the probation report constitutes reversible error.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“a defendant may admit the prior convictions charged against him and thereby obviate the requirement of any proof whatsoever; or he may stipulate to the determination of the truth of the charge of a prior conviction by any method”

“The making of the statutory statement is mandatory; and, even though we may conclude that the report had, in fact, been read and considered, the court was without power to deny probation or to impose sentence unless and until it had expressly”

[678]

KINGSLEY, J.

After sundry amendments and consolidations, defendant ultimately went to trial on an information charging two counts of burglary, with six prior felony convictions. He pled guilty to count one, but denied the prior convictions. The second count was dismissed, the court found the prior felony convictions to be true, denied probation, fixed the degree of crime as burglary in the second degree, and sentenced appellant to prison for the term prescribed by law. He has appealed from the judgment of conviction.

In view of the plea of guilty, no matter relating to defendant’s guilt is before us. His appeal challenges only the proof of the prior convictions and the manner of acting on the probation report.

After defendant had pled guilty, he and his counsel duly waived jury trial as to the prior felony convictions and, through his counsel, accepted a stipulation tendered by the deputy district attorney and couched in the following language : “ ... the People will stipulate that as to those six priors the Court may determine them at the time of P & S from any information furnished the court by either counsel, that is, counsel for the defendant, myself, or the Probation Department.

The case came on for further proceedings before a judge other than the one who had taken the guilty plea and the stipulation. A probation report was on file, and there is no contention that it had not been served at the time required by section 1203 of the Penal Code. The report, stating that its information had been gained from certain law enforcement agencies and the probation department, set out a series of arrests and convictions, including six convictions, under various names, as to each of which the report says that it “appears to be” or that it “seems to be” one of the six felony convictions alleged in the information. The trial judge, after examining the file, found that “the priors are good” and proceeded to sentence defendant.

Defendant’s counsel urges with vigor: (a) that the method of proving the priors was illegal, since it was not the mode of proof set out in section 969b of the Penal Code; (b) that the probation report was improperly considered, since it was hearsay upon hearsay; (c) that the probation report, given its fullest possible effect, does not clearly identify the convictions therein listed as being the same convictions as those charged in the information, and, thus, that the finding that

People v. Williams

AI Brief

KINGSLEY, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief