People v. Hunter

California Court of Appeal Dec 24, 1940 No. Crim. 3364Published

Before: Moore

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for grand theft based on fraudulent representations and that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction in revoking the defendant's probation and imposing a sentence.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's convictions for grand theft.
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to revoke the defendant's probation and impose a sentence after the expiration of the original probationary term.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It follows that if at the time of gaining possession of property by means of such fraudulent statements, the defendant cherished a secret purpose of converting the property to his own use and did so, he was guilty of theft.”

“The authority to revoke a prisoner’s probation does not even depend upon his violation of the specific conditions of the probation.”

“The fact that defendant was committed at a time subsequent to the expiration of the period of his probation is immaterial. His probation had been revoked prior to the expiration of the probationary term.”

MOORE, P. J.

By information, appellant was accused of four counts of grand theft, by taking from one Phillip Brenion the sum of $150 (count 1); by taking his Chevrolet ear of a value in excess of $200 (count 2); by taking a Durant automobile from Brenion (count 3); and by taking the sum of $700 from one F. A. Blount and his wife (count 4). After a

[89]

trial by the court ending April 23, 1929, defendant was found guilty on all counts but the third.

May 9, 1929, proceedings were suspended and defendant was placed on probation for five years on condition that he serve four months at the county road camp and abide by the rules prescribed by the probation department. May 9, 1932, defendant was arraigned for violation of his probation and his period of probation was at that time extended “for an additional five years from May 9, 1934.” May 1, 1939, by an

ex parte

order, the probation was revoked and a bench warrant was issued for the arrest of defendant. After a hearing on the “violation of probation” April 8, 1940, he was sentenced to the State Prison at San Quentin on the three counts, the sentences to run concurrently.

He appeals on the grounds: (1) That the evidence was insufficient to constitute a felony in either case, and (2) that the court was without jurisdiction to revoke defendant’s probation.

In October, 1928, defendant and another were operating a business of selling used cars in the city of Santa Monica under the firm name of Crescent Marmon Motors Company. In order to purchase a Durant car on display in the show room of the Crescent Marmon Motors Company, Brenion delivered his Chevrolet car to and paid defendant the sum of $950. At the time of making said transaction, defendant stated to Brenion: (1) That the Durant selected by Brenion was a repossessed car; (2.) that its title was in the Commercial Credit Company; (3) that appellant was selling it as the agent for said company; (4) that he would get the pink slip from said company in about two weeks from Sacramento; and (5) that the title was clear.

The truth was that appellant and his partner owned an equity in the Durant while the Commercial Credit Company held its legal title as security for the obligation of the Crescent Marmon Motors Company. Instead of delivering the $950 to the Credit Company, appellant deposited the money in the checking account of the Crescent Marmon Motors Company.

People v. Hunter

AI Brief

MOORE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief