People v. Carr
| Decision Date | 30 December 1957 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 5959 |
| Citation | 319 P.2d 445,156 Cal.App.2d 462 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | , Blue Sky L. Rep. P 70,371 The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. John Emmett CARR, Defendant and Appellant. |
John Emmett Carr, in pro. per. for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Herschel Elkins, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
John Emmett Carr, defendant in this case, was convicted of two counts of violation of the Corporate Securities Act. Section 26104(a), Corporations Code.
He and his associates took money from two women, for which they gave them securities in projected motion picture enterprises. One woman lost a thousand dollars, and the other one lost five thousand dollars. These 'securities' were issued without the permit of the Corporation Commissioner, as required by law.
Mr. Carr waived a jury trial. In the Superior Court the People's case was submitted by stipulation upon the reporter's transcript of the proceedings on the preliminary examination in the Municipal Court.
The judge of the Superior Court suspended sentences imposed upon defendant, and granted him probation for five years, with a fine of $300 on one count only, and with a direction that he make such restitution as the probation officer should recommend.
Defendant appeals from the judgment, and appears in this court in propria persona.
He argues on appeal:
1. That 'the plaintiffs entered into a conspiracy with the district attorney's office * * * to amend their original complaints, against Phillip Dane, President and Treasurer of the International Synchronization Corp.' to include him.
2. That the prosecution failed to prove and violation of the Corporations Code, and that the trial judge refused to furnish the oral proceedings of the court's findings and arguments requested by defendant.
Defendant complains that the name of one David C. Craig was not identified with the transaction, although one of the women who lost her money identified him as the man who arranged her business with Mr. Phillip Dane; also that restitution was for one-third by this defendant, one-third by Mr. Dane, and one-third by Mr. Craig.
Defendant also complains of the refusal of the trial judge to 'consider the refutation of one of the women's statements under oath as to repayment of the first $300' that he and his associates got from her.
Finally, defendant charges perjury by all of the witnesses against him, and challenges the trial judge 'to join the state and oppose me before the court in oral argument.'
Like so many men who attempt to try their own cases, Mr. Carr completely misunderstands the function of a court of review under the constitution and laws of California.
In 4 Cal.Jur.2d, at pages 481 and 482, is to be found a good statement of the rule. In criminal matters an appellate court is expressly limited by the constitution to a review of questions of law alone. And where there are mixed questions of law and fact and no error is shown in the application of the rules of law to the facts proved the determination of the lower court must stand.
All that an appellate court is permitted to do is to ascertain from the record if there is any substantial evidence to support the verdict of a jury or of a judge.
So in this case, reading the reporter's transcript of the preliminary examination and of the trial in the Superior Court, this court finds substantial evidence to support the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Quinn
...the record if there is any substantial evidence to support the verdict of the jury or the decision of the judge. (People v. Carr, 156 Cal.App.2d 462, 464, 319 P.2d 445; People v. Janisse, 162 Cal.App.2d 117, 122, 328 P.2d 11.) Therefore, in accord with the spirit and intent of these princip......
-
People v. Fork
...to ascertaining from the record whether there is any substantial evidence to support the verdict of the jury. (People v. Carr, 156 Cal.App.2d 462, 464, 319 P.2d 445; People v. Janisse, 162 Cal.App.2d 117, 122, 328 P.2d 11.) Our review, moreover, is bound by the rule that insofar as the evid......
-
People v. Wilson
...from the record if there is any substantial evidence to support the verdict of the jury or the decision of the judge (People v. Carr, 156 Cal.App.2d 462, 464, 319 P.2d 445; People v. Janisse, 162 Cal.App.2d 117, 122, 328 P.2d 11), since a reviewing court is bound by the rule that even thoug......
-
People v. Taylor
...a failure warrants the conviction of violation of section 25540. (People v. Acres, 174 Cal.App.2d 42, 47, 344 P.2d 327; People v. Carr, 156 Cal.App.2d 462, 319 P.2d 445.) There is no merit to the contention of insufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment. (See People v. Reilly, 3 C......