People v. Martinez

[122]

SHAW, J.

On December 13, 1921, the defendant was convicted upon an information charging him with the crime of statutory rape committed in Tulare County in June of that year. Four days after his conviction, to wit, on December 17th, the court convened for the purpose of pronouncing judgment against him, at which time he applied to the court to be admitted to probation. The hearing of this application was postponed to January 3, 1922, at which time his application was denied and judgment pronounced, all in accordance with the provisions of section 1191 of the Penal Code. From this judgment he has appealed.

First. Defendant’s first contention is that the court failed to pronounce judgment within the time prescribed by law. While section 1191 of the Penal Code provides that upon the conviction of a defendant the court must appoint a time for pronouncing judgment, which must not be more than five days thereafter, it further provides that where an application for probation is to be considered the court may extend such time for a period not exceeding twenty days. As appears from the record herein, there was an application made by defendant for probation and the time for hearing of the same was continued from December. 17th to January 3d, a period well within the twenty days provided by the section, and within which time judgment was pronounced.

Second. It is claimed that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict of conviction. This contention is likewise without merit. While the testimony of the prosecuting witness clearly tended to prove the commission of the act of sexual intercourse between herself and the defendant, he insists that such testimony was not corroborated. The law that the uncorroborated testimony of the victim of a statutory rape is sufficient, considered alone, to sustain a conviction, is too 'well settled to require comment. There was ample testimony, as to the truth of which the jury was convinced, tending to show that the prosecuting witness, at the time of the commission of the crime, was under the age of sixteen years.

Third. Another contention is that the evidence was insufficient to show the alleged offense was committed in Tulare County. . The testimony of the prosecuting witness, while to the effect that she did not know whether the act occurred