People v. O'Brien

California Court of Appeal Feb 17, 1933 No. Docket No. 2244.Published

Before: York

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court's initial failure to determine the degree of the crimes was a mere irregularity, and that the subsequent remand for such determination did not place the defendant in double jeopardy. Furthermore, the court held that the issue of the defendant's insanity at the time of the second hearing was not properly raised in the trial court and could not be considered on appeal.

Issues

Whether the trial court's remand for determination of the degree of the crimes subjected the defendant to double jeopardy.
Whether the defendant was entitled to enter a plea of former jeopardy and not guilty by reason of insanity at the second hearing.
Whether the issue of the defendant's insanity at the time of the second hearing was properly preserved for appeal.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We are of the opinion that the first judgment rendered was merely irregular and that the appellate court pursued the proper remedy when it ordered the appellant returned to the superior court for determination of the degree of his crimes”

“he was not again in jeopardy.”

“the question of insanity of appellant at the time he was brought before the trial court after the remittitur from the appellate court was not properly raised, if at all, in the trial court, and therefore cannot be raised upon this appeal.”

YORK, J.

Appellant pleaded guilty to one count in each of two informations which charged him with the crime of robbery. He also entered his plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. The two eases were tried together before the court upon the issue of insanity at the time of the commission of the alleged offenses, trial by jury having been waived. The court found that the appellant was sane, and denied his application for probation in both cases. The court also denied appellant’s motions for new trial and sentenced him to the state penitentiary for the crime of robbery for the period prescribed by law. Appellant took an appeal from the judgment of the court, maintaining that he was substantially prejudiced in his rights, because the trial court in its determination of the degree of his crimes considered no evidence of any kind. On March 25, 1932, judgment of .this court was made and entered as follows: “In each appeal it is ordered that the order denying the motion for a new trial be and it is affirmed. Each of the judgments is affirmed, subject, however, to further determination of the degree of the several crimes. It is further ordered that defendant appear before the superior court for the purpose of having determined the degree of each of the crimes of which he pleaded guilty, and thereafter that in each action a new judgment be pronounced against him. ’ ’

(People

O’Brien, 122

Cal. App. 147, 159 [9 Pac. (2d) 902, 906].)

Appellant was brought back from the state prison, and when the cases were called in the superior court, appellant by his counsel moved to file a plea of once in jeopardy, which motion was by the court denied. Thereafter, on June 1, 1932, new judgments were pronounced in accordance with

[662]

the order of this court, the superior court fixing the crimes as robbery of the first degree, sentences on the two counts to run concurrently.

Upon this appeal, appellant maintains that the trial court committed error upon the second hearing when it denied him the right to enter a plea of former jeopardy and not guilty by reason of insanity.

People v. O'Brien

AI Brief

YORK, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief