People v. Ramos

California Court of Appeal Dec 30, 1926 No. Docket No. 1421.Published

Before: Conrey

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the right to a new trial under Penal Code section 1202 does not apply to defendants who have pleaded guilty, and that an invalid provision in a probation order requiring custody is severable from the valid grant of probation.

Issues

Does the right to a new trial under Penal Code section 1202 apply to a defendant who has pleaded guilty?
Does a failure to impose sentence within the time limits of Penal Code section 1191 affect the court's jurisdiction?
Is a probation order invalid if it includes an unauthorized provision for custody of the defendant?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude that the right to a new trial, as given by said section 1202, does not apply when the defendant is awaiting judgment under a plea of guilty.”

“The void portion of the order, directing that defendant remain in the custody of the sheriff during the first nine months of the probation period, is severable from the order admitting to probation”

[530]

CONREY, P. J.

On an information charging defendant with the crime of burglary he pleaded guilty and was permitted to file an application for probation. Plea of guilty was entered on the twenty-second day of August, 1924. Thereafter, in due course, the court on October 14, 1924, entered its order as follows: “That proceedings herein be suspended and the defendant granted probation for the term of three years, under the supervision of the probation officer and subject to the terms and conditions stated by the court. The first nine months of said probation period, defendant is to be in the custody of the sheriff of the county of Los Angeles, during which time he shall be permitted to work on the public highways of Los Angeles county.” On May 28, 1925, the court made the following order: “Order of October 14, 1924, is now modified as follows: Defendant is ordered released on probation under the terms and conditions stated by the court.” On August 6, 1926, defendant was brought before the court pursuant to suggestion made that since his release on probation the defendant had violated the conditions of his probation. The defendant by his counsel then suggested that he was not legally on probation, and asked permission to file an application for a new trial. The application was filed, if we may so infer from the judge’s statement: “So far as the written motion is concerned it may be deemed filed.” The motion itself is not in the record. The court thereupon rendered judgment that the defendant be imprisoned in the state prison of the state of California, at San Quentin, for the term prescribed by law. The defendant appealed from the judgment, and from the order denying his motion for a new trial. In his “statement of grounds of appeal under Penal Code sections 1246 and 1247,” defendant specified that the court had no jurisdiction to pronounce judgment, for the reason that defendant was not sentenced within the time provided under sections 1191 and 1202 of the Penal Code, and that the court erred in denying his motion and request for a new trial.

Section 1191 of the Penal Code states and limits the time for pronouncing judgment, and defines the rules governing extensions of time for pronouncing judgment. Section 1202 of the Penal Code provides, among other things, that if the judgment be not rendered or pronounced within the time

[531]

People v. Ramos

AI Brief

CONREY, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief