People v. Swift

HOUSER, J. By information filed against him, defendant was accused in each of two separate counts of an information of the commission by him of the crime of burglary. In the same information, it was charged fhat prior to the commission of either of such offenses defendant had suffered two separate convictions of the crime of burglary ; which fact, on his arraignment for plea, defendant admitted. Following his conviction on each of the counts of burglary of which he was accused in the instant action, defendant was sentenced as a habitual criminal. After he had been incarcerated in the state prison for a period of more than five years, and while still so imprisoned, he caused to be presented to the superior court a motion by which, in part, he sought to have the minutes of such court corrected so as to show, what he asserted was the fact, to wit, that at the time of his arraignment for sentence for conviction of the two crimes of burglary of which he had been convicted in said court, he was not asked either by the court, or by the clerk, as required by the provisions of section 1200 of the Penal [9]Code, whether he had “any legal cause to show why judgment should not be pronounced against him”. As a part of the same motion, presented at the same time as was the part thereof to which reference just has been had, in substance defendant moved that an order be made by the court by which the judgment theretofore rendered against him be “annulled, vacated and set aside”. The ground asserted by defendant for such motion was “that the court exceeded its jurisdiction when it pronounced a judgment without first fully complying with Sec. 1200, Pen. C., and further that in adjudging defendant an habitual criminal it exceeded the jurisdiction it acquired under the particular pleadings, or information, made and filed in this cause”. The instant appeal is from an order made by the trial court by which said motion was denied.

Waiving any and all objections which properly may or might be raised respecting the right of defendant to be heard on appeal from the order in question, but considering the suggested error on its merits,—it appears that in the case of People v. Walker, 132 Cal. 137 [64 Pac. 133], it was held that the provision of section 1200 of the Penal Code, to which attention just has been directed, is mandatory, and that “a substantial compliance therewith is essential, for they affect important rights of the defendant, who, when thus called upon, may show either that he is insane or that there are grounds for a new trial, or for arrest of judgment”.

It therefore is indicated by judicial determination that the “legal cause”, if any, which defendant might have urged “why judgment should not be pronounced against him” consisted in his making a showing either that he was then insane, that proper grounds existed why he should be awarded a new trial, or for arrest of judgment.