People v. Zuvela

California Supreme Court May 29, 1923 No. Crim. No. 2530.Published

Before: Lennon

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a failure to pronounce sentence within the time prescribed by Penal Code section 1191 is a procedural error that does not warrant a new trial unless it results in a miscarriage of justice under the state constitution. The court further held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for seduction under promise of marriage.

Issues

Whether a failure to impose sentence within the time prescribed by Penal Code section 1191 entitles a defendant to a new trial as a matter of right.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for seduction under promise of marriage.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The failure to impose the sentence within the time specified by section 1191 of the Penal Code is clearly an “error” of “procedure.””

“It was held in People v. Wallace, 109 Cal. 611 [42 Pac. 159], that the evidence was sufficient, in a charge of this character, to support the verdict if the circumstances disclosed be such as to warrant the jury in the deduction that the act would not have been accomplished without, or in the absence of, such promise.”

LENNON, J.

The defendant was convicted in the court below of the crime of seduction under promise of marriage. He seeks to have the judgment there rendered reversed upon the ground that the sentence was not pronounced within the time prescribed by section 1191 of the Penal Code and that he was, therefore, entitled to a new trial as a matter of right under the provisions of section 1202 of the Penal Code.

We are satisfied that section 4½ of article VI of the constitution operates to prevent the granting of a new trial for the error, if any, specified. This section of the constitution provides that “No judgment shall be set aside, or new trial granted, in any case, . . . for any error as to any matter of procedure, unless, after an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence, the court shall be of the opinion that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.”

The failure to impose the sentence within the time specified by section 1191 of the Penal Code is clearly an “error” of “procedure.” In

Rankin

Superior Court,

157 Cal. 189 [106 Pac. 718], wherein it was sought to prohibit the trial court from imposing sentence after the lapse of time provided by section 1191 of the Penal Code, it was said: “If the court should refuse a new trial and render judgment against the defendant after the authorized time has passed, its action would be erroneous and the judgment would be reversed on appeal, if an appeal should be taken. But as it would be a judgment rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the person, it would not be void, nor subject to collateral attack upon the ground of its untimely rendition. As the court, even if it does give judgment, as the petitioner alleges it to be about to do, will not be acting without, or in excess of its jurisdiction, prohibition is not maintainable.”

We see no good reason for excepting this particular error from the general provisions of section 4% of article VI of the constitution. After an examination of the entire cause,

[225]

including the evidence, we are satisfied that the error complained of in the instant case did not result in a miscarriage of justice. It will not, therefore, suffice to warrant a reversal of the judgment for the purpose of having a new trial.

People v. Zuvela

AI Brief

LENNON, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief