People v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Dec 5, 1933 No. Docket No. 9346.Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the respondent court lacked the authority to impose a misdemeanor sentence for the defendant's conviction of attempted grand theft with prior convictions, and that a state prison sentence was required.

Issues

Whether the trial court had the authority to impose a misdemeanor sentence for attempted grand theft with prior convictions.
Whether the defendant was required to be sentenced to state prison under the applicable Penal Code sections.

Disposition. Peremptory writ issued.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the court was without authority to impose a misdemeanor sentence, and that the punishment required to be imposed is by way of sentence to a term in the state prison.”

“we are satisfied that this court should approve the stipulation thus made.”

THE COURT.

In an action against one Oliver, the defendant was convicted of attempted grand theft, with two prior convictions of other offenses. Respondent court sentenced Oliver to a term of one year in the county jail. It is the contention of the district attorney that under the circumstances of the case, the court was without authority to impose a misdemeanor sentence, and that the punishment required to be imposed is by way of sentence to a term in the state prison.

[1] Apparently the respondent has been convinced that it was in error, for we have presented to us a stipulation that the peremptory writ of mandate may issue. On examination of the authorities — particularly referring to Penal Code, sections 489 and 664, and People v. Superior Court, 116 Cal.App. 412 [2 P.2d 843], and Ex parte Hope, 59 Cal. 423 — we are satisfied that this court should approve the stipulation thus made.

Let the peremptory writ issue.

People v. Superior Court

AI Brief

THE COURT.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief