People v. Brown
| Decision Date | 28 May 1952 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 4772 |
| Citation | 244 P.2d 702,111 Cal.App.2d 406 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. BROWN. |
Sidney L. Gelber, San Fernando, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment sentencing him to State prison. On April 23, 1936, in a trial to the court defendant was adjudged guilty of the offense of attempted robbery by means of force and fear. He was subject to imprisonment for a period of not less than one nor more than twenty years. Penal Code, sec. 664. Imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on probation for a term of ten years on condition that he serve the first six months in the county jail, obey all the laws and report regularly to the probation department. On June 14, 1937, in his absence, a report of violation of probation was filed, probation was revoked and a bench warrant was issued. The violation of probation consisted of defendant's failure, after March, 1937, to report monthly to the probation officer. On November 1, 1951, defendant was in court with counsel and was sentenced to the State prison for the term prescribed by law. It thus appears that defendant was sentenced 15 years and 7 months after he was placed on probation, and 14 years and 5 months after probation had been revoked. In the meantime defendant had married, had become the father of four children, and so far as appears in the record had not been found guilty of violating any law and did not even know that probation had been revoked.
Defendant contends that the court lost jurisdiction to sentence him upon the expiration of the term of probation. He outlines his argument as follows: The court has no jurisdiction under the probation laws, section 1203 et seq., of the Penal Code, to place a person on probation for a longer term than is prescribed as the maximum punishment for the offense of which he has been convicted; it is manifest throughout the scheme of probation that the legislature never intended for the court to retain jurisdiction of a person beyond the term fixed by the court as the probationary period; if the court can impose sentence at any time after the expiration of the term of probation, it can do so even after the expiration of the maximum time for which probation could be granted; during the term of probation, even though probation is revoked, the court can still change its order, but if, when probation has been revoked, the court cannot, after the expiration of the term, change the terms of probation and must sentence the defendant, the authorities can by mere inaction deprive the probationer of an opportunity to prove meritorious grounds for remaining on probation; it could not have been the intention of the legislature to provide that if probation is revoked within the prescribed term the probationer is subject during the remainder of his life to the imposition or execution of sentence.
Defendant relies upon section 1203.3, Penal Code, which reads in part as follows 'The court shall have authority at any time during the term of probation to revoke, modify, or change its order of suspension of imposition or execution of sentence. * * * and in all cases, if the court has not seen fit to revoke the order of probation and impose sentence or pronounce judgment, the defendant shall at the end of the term of probation or any extension thereof, be by the court discharged subject to the provisions of these sections.' (Emphasis added.) While apparently conceding that during the term of probation the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Franklin v. State
... ... Evans, 73 Idaho 50, 245 P.2d 788 (1952); Storseth v. State, 72 Idaho 49, 236 P.2d 1004 (1951); People v. Cortez, 199 Cal.App.2d[87 Idaho 298] 839, 19 Cal.Rptr. 50 (1962); Bryson v. United States, 265 F.2d 9 (9th Cir. 1959), cert. denied, 360 U.S ... Ex parte Medley, supra; State v. O'Dell, supra; Affronti v. United States, 350 U.S. 79, 76 S.Ct. 171, 100 L.Ed. 62 (1955); People v. Brown, 111 Cal.App.2d 406, 244 P.2d 702 (1952); 24 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1571(1) (1961) ... Under such statutes, trial courts, in ... ...
-
United States v. Yepez
... ... See, e.g., People v. Howard, 16 Cal.4th 1081, 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 870, 946 P.2d 828, 835 (1997); People v. Carbajal, 10 Cal.4th 1114, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 681, 899 P.2d 67, 70 ... Brown, 111 Cal.App.2d 406, 244 P.2d 702, 704 (1952); People v. O'Donnell, 37 Cal.App. 192, 174 P. 102, 104 (1918) (The authority in a court to suspend a ... ...
-
U.S. v. Yepez
... ... See, e.g., People v. Howard, 16 Cal.4th 1081, 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 870, 946 P.2d 828, 835 (1997); People v. Carbajal, 10 Cal.4th 1114, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 681, 899 P.2d 67, 70 ... Brown, 111 Cal.App.2d 406, 244 P.2d 702, 704 (1952); People v. O'Donnell, 37 Cal.App. 192, 174 P. 102, 104 (1918) (The authority in a court to suspend a ... ...
-
Griffin, In re
... ... 1 ... Although the order revoking probation could have been reviewed on an appeal from the ensuing judgment (People v. Robinson (1954) 43 Cal.2d 143, 145, 271 P.2d 872), petitioner[67 Cal.2d 346] did not appeal. Instead, after having applied unsuccessfully for ... Blume (1960) 183 Cal.App.2d 474, 481--482, 7 Cal.Rptr. 16; People v. Blakeman (1959) 170 Cal.App.2d 596, 599, 339 P.2d 202; People v. Brown (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 406, 408, 244 P.2d 702.) Habeas corpus lies to review and correct action in excess of the jurisdiction defined by section ... ...