People v. Willison

California Court of Appeal Apr 21, 1932 No. Docket No. 2160.Published

Before: Conrey

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's judgment and order denying a new trial, holding that the evidence supported the prior conviction findings and that the appellate court lacked authority to take additional evidence in a jury trial case.

Issues

Whether the judgment correctly addressed prior convictions and habitual criminal status.
Whether the defendant's identification as the person previously convicted was sufficient.
Whether the defendant's alleged absence during witness testimony constituted reversible error.
Whether the appellate court may take additional evidence in a jury trial case under the Constitution or Code of Civil Procedure.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict, and that is conclusive of the matter.”

“The order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial is affirmed. The judgment from which defendant appeals is affirmed.”

[761]

CONREY, P. J.

The defendant was convicted of burglary in two cases which were consolidated for trial. The informations charged certain prior convictions. Upon appeal to this court it was determined that the verdicts of conviction should be sustained, but that the defendant was entitled to a new trial upon the issues with respect to certain former convictions. Therefore, it was ordered that the order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, with respect to the alleged prior convictions in the Superior Court of the County of Sonoma and in the Superior Court of the County of Alameda, and defendant’s service of terms of imprisonment thereon, and as to those matters only, be reversed. It was directed that upon completion of the disposal by new trial or otherwise of said issues relating to former convictions in the county of Alameda and in the county of Sonoma, the trial court pronounce and enter judgment as prescribed by law.

(People

v. Willison, 116 Cal. App. 157 [2 Pac. (2d) 543].)

Thereafter, in due course, said issues thus sent back for trial were again tried in the superior court and verdicts were returned finding that said charges of prior conviction and of service of terms of imprisonment therefor were true. Thereupon, the court pronounced judgment in accordance with the instructions given by this court in its decision of the former appeal. Appellant again moved for a new trial, which motion was denied, and he now appeals from the judgment and from the order denying the said motion for a new trial.

The grounds of appeal as set forth in the brief for appellant are as follows: (a) That the judgment is erroneous in failing to fix the punishment as an habitual criminal, (b) That the accused cannot be charged with the crime of prior conviction of “petit larceny with prior conviction”, and that said prior conviction cannot be set up in the information or indictment, (c) That the identification of defendant as the person convicted in the two prior cases is uncertain. (d) That the defendant was absent from court during a part of the examination of one of the witnesses at the trial.

The judgment was in correct form in accordance with the provisions of the Penal Code in relation to such

People v. Willison

AI Brief

CONREY, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief