People v. Mitchell

California Court of Appeal Oct 21, 1930 No. Docket No. 1985.Published

Before: Craig

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. In prosecutions where the punishment may be either a felony or a misdemeanor, the charge remains a felony for all purposes until judgment; if the judgment is for a misdemeanor, it is deemed a misdemeanor only thereafter and does not have a retroactive effect on the statute of limitations.

Issues

Whether the statute of limitations for misdemeanors bars a prosecution for receiving stolen property filed more than one year after the offense when the defendant was convicted of a felony.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for receiving stolen property.
Whether a variance between the alleged and proven ownership of the stolen property constitutes prejudicial error.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the charge stands as a felony for every purpose up to judgment, and if the judgment be felonious in that event it is a felony after as well as before judgment; but if the judgment is for a misdemeanor it is deemed a misdemeanor for all purposes thereafter—the judgment not to have a retroactive effect so far as the statute of limitations is concerned.”

“A variance between allegation and proof of ownership in such a ease is not prejudicial to the rights of the defendant if the property stolen can otherwise be sufficiently identified.”

CRAIG, J.

Upon an information charging the crime of receiving stolen property, a felony, appellant was tried before a jury and found guilty as charged, after which conviction the court below sentenced her to serve a term of three months in the county jail. A motion for a new trial having been denied, she appealed, assigning as grounds for reversal the bar of the statute of limitations and insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the judgment.

The information was filed about two years after receipt of the property in question by the appellant. Reliance is placed upon the interpretation of sections 17 and 801 of the Penal Code, as announced in

People

Gray,

137 Cal. 267 [70 Pac. 20]. It was there held that an offense punished as a misdemeanor must for all purposes be deemed as such, and that an indictment therefor, filed more than one year after the commission of the offense, was barred by the statute of limitations. In

Doble

Superior Court,

197 Cal. 556 [241 Pac. 852], the Supreme- Court in denying a petition for a writ of prohibition, prior to trial, limited the application of section 17 of the Penal Code to “purposes after a judgment imposing other than imprisonment in the state

[118]

prison”. Particular attention was called to the fact that while section 801 requires the filing of a misdemeanor charge within one year after its commission, said section contemplates only misdemeanors as distinguished from offenses for which the court may justify judicial discretion in determining the nature of the penalty. While it is there recognized that

People v. Gray

arose after trial and judgment, yet the plain import of the decision is that in so far as it conflicts with this interpretation it is overruled, and that to such extent it was not founded upon any authority to the contrary of this later view. It is said of

People v. Mitchell

AI Brief

CRAIG, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief