People v. Bartges
| Decision Date | 03 November 1954 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 5126 |
| Citation | 128 Cal.App.2d 496,275 P.2d 518 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Warren Eugene BARTGES, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Lowell Lyons, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth Miller, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
In two separate amended informations filed by the District Attorney of Los Angeles County, defendant was accused of the crimes of forgery and grand theft.
The amended informations also charged that the accused previously had been convicted of arson, larceny and larceny by bailee, and grand theft. He was tried and convicted of both crimes and judgments were entered on September 1, 1953 wherein it was stated that the allegations of prior convictions alleged in the information were true.
Defendant appealed from the judgments of conviction and from the order denying his motion for a new trial.
On July 28, 1954 this court filed its opinion affirming the judgments of the trial court finding that there was evidence, including certified copies of records of state prisons showing commitment to such institutions of someone bearing the same name as the appellant; testimony of a fingerprint expert that the fingerprints of the appellant were of the same person as those appearing on the prison records; and his admission on cross-examination that he had been previously convicted of those crimes, to show that he had previously been convicted of the three crimes charged, and that therefore the Court below did not abuse its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences or in denying probation.
The appellant did not petition for a rehearing or for a hearing in the Supreme Court.
On August 27, 1954, the appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court of California, in which he asserted the illegality of his confinement on the ground that the evidence at the trial had been insufficient to support the finding that he had been convicted three times previously, inasmuch as the District Attorney had allowed the prison records as to two of them to remain for Identification only; that the improper finding of three prior convictions resulted in improper imposition of consecutive sentences in the instant case; and that the trial court erroneously sustained the declination of Jameson to testify on the ground that his testimony would tend to incriminate him, People v. Bartges, 126 Cal.App.2d ----, 273 P.2d 49.
The Attorney General now advises this court that in re-examining the record on appeal he has discovered an entry which has not heretofore been called to the attention of this court by either appellant or respondent. This court was unaware of said entry until advised thereof by the Attorney General on October 27, 1954. It appears on page 22, lines 16-18 of the Clerk's Transcript, and reads as follows: 'Motion of the District Attorney to dismiss the second and third prior convictions as alleged in the information is granted'.
It is manifest that since the trial court granted the aforesaid motion to dismiss the second and third prior convictions as alleged...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Mutch
...court resulting in a miscarriage of justice (see In re Rothrock (1939) 14 Cal.2d 34, 38--41, 92 P.2d 634; People v. Bartges (1954) 128 Cal.App.2d 496, 498, 275 P.2d 518; People v. Hickock (1949) 92 Cal.App.2d 539, 207 P.2d 620; cf. People v. Holt (1949) 95 Cal.App.2d 1, 211 P.2d 917), Or (2......
-
Bartges, Application of
...if and as appropriate. Instead, the District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgments as modified by it. (People v. Bartges (1954), 128 Cal.App.2d 496, 275 P.2d 518.) Petitioner (subject to bail as fixed by the superior court) is in the custody of the sheriff of Los Angeles County and stay of......