People v. Hoffman

California Court of Appeal May 17, 1933 No. Docket No. 85.Published

Before: Andrews

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A criminal judgment is void and subject to vacation if the information shows on its face that the statute of limitations has expired, as the court lacks jurisdiction to enter a conviction in such cases.

Issues

Whether an information filed after the expiration of the statute of limitations is void on its face.
Whether a defendant waives the statute of limitations defense by failing to appeal the original judgment of conviction.
Whether a void judgment can be challenged by a motion to vacate after the time for appeal has passed.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It appears from the face of the information that it did not state a public offense and that defendant could not be prosecuted thereunder and no judgment of conviction could be based upon it.”

“Where the judgment is void upon the face of the record it is as if no judgment existed and no technical rule can prevent the correction of such a wrong.”

ANDREWS, J.,

pro

tem.

On the sixteenth day of February, 1931, the information in this case was filed wherein defendant was charged with a violation of section 606 of the Penal Code, a felony, committed on the twenty-eighth day of February, 1927. Section 800 of the Penal Code requires that information must be filed within three years after the commission of the crime. The time elapsing from the commission of the crime, as set forth in the information," and the time of its filing, was three years and more than eleven months. When arraigned defendant entered a plea of guilty and the court pronounced .judgment sentencing him to the state prison. Subsequently, on the nineteenth day of December, 1932, defendant filed a notice of motion to vacate and set aside the judgment on the grounds that the court had no jurisdiction to pronounce said judgment in that the information was not filed within the three-year limit prescribed by the code, and that the proceeding was in violation of defendant’s constitutional rights and a denial of due process of law, and that the judgment and all proceedings

[62]

had thereon were null and void. The motion was denied and this appeal taken to this court.

On behalf of defendant it is here contended that the information was void upon its face in that it appeared affirmatively therein that the statute of limitations had run against any prosecution or judgment for the alleged crime. Opposed to this contention the state maintains that the statute of limitations is a mere matter of defense which must be asserted by defendant, failing in which, it is by him waived. This question, whether regarded as one of pleading or substantive law, has for long years divided the various jurisdictions of this country and carefully considered opinions have been rendered by state and federal courts and different conclusions have been reached.

The question came before the Supreme Court of this state at an early date, and in 12 Cal. 291, in the case of

People

Miller,

the court took the position contended for by defendant, using the following language: “The allegation of a day within the period of limitation is material, whether the offense is subject to limitation. ... It is true that the statute of limitations excludes from computations the time the defendant may be out of the state, but the rule is, that this exception must be stated in the pleading.

People v. Hoffman

AI Brief

ANDREWS, J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief