People v. Brahm

California Court of Appeal Jan 17, 1930 No. Docket No. 1858.Published

Before: York

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw her guilty plea and vacate the judgment, as the motion was a renewal of a previously denied motion and failed to present sufficient new facts.

Issues

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion to withdraw a guilty plea and vacate judgment after a prior similar motion had been denied.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“While appellant denominated the proceeding a motion “de novo,” it was in effect a renewal of motion, and discretion rested with the court to decide whether or not it would permit such renewal.”

“We are of the opinion that there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in denying the motion here involved.”

[248]

YORK, J.

The defendant and appellant was charged by information filed by the district attorney of Los Angeles County with the crime of arson. She pleaded guilty to the charge and at her request was granted leave to make application for probation. After several continuances had been had of the hearing on the matter of probation, an order was finally made by which probation was denied and judgment was pronounced against her. Thereafter, the defendant moved the trial court for leave to withdraw her plea of “guilty” and substitute therefor a plea of “not guilty” and at the same time moved the court to vacate the judgment. An order was made denying both of these motions and an appeal was prosecuted in which the appellate court upheld the action of the trial court.

(People

Brahm,

98 Cal. App. 733 [277 Pac. 896].) Subsequently, to wit: Tune 13, 1929, request was made upon the presiding judge of the Superior Court for further stay of proceedings and leave to present facts and evidence in support of a motion

“de novo”

for leave to withdraw the plea of guilty and to vacate the judgment. Said motion was argued; denied by the court, and this appeal is taken from the order denying said motion. A stay of execution was granted pending determination of this appeal.

Appellant in her brief maintains that the trial court refused to entertain the motion for the reason that the matter was

res adjudicata

by virtue of the decision upon appeal from the order denying the first motion. An examination of the record discloses the fact that the trial court heard the motion upon its merits, but stated in denying it that no new matter had been presented which would justify a withdrawal of appellant’s plea of guilty.

After a denial of such motion, “while leave to renew will rarely be granted unless it appears that a new state of facts has arisen since the former hearing . . . leave may, in the discretion of the court, be granted upon the same facts more fully stated.” (18 Cal. Jur., p. 660.) While appellant denominated the proceeding a motion

People v. Brahm

AI Brief

YORK, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief