People v. Daugherty
| Decision Date | 29 March 1965 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 1676 |
| Citation | 233 Cal.App.2d 284,43 Cal.Rptr. 446 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. John Edward DAUGHERTY, Defendant and Appellant. |
Harold P. Curtis, San Diego, as atty. and John Edward Daugherty, in pro. per. for defendant and appellant.
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and C. Anthony Collins, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
*
This is an appeal by defendant from judgment and sentence imposed subsequent to the making of an order revoking probation.
On December 15, 1952, a complaint was filed in the Municipal Court of the City of San Diego charging defendant with the theft of a motorcycle in violation of Section 503 of the California Vehicle Code. 1 On December 18, 1952, defendant while represented by an attorney and with the consent of the District Attorney entered his plea of guilty to the charge. Transfer was then made to the Superior Court where defendant moved for leave to withdraw his plea of guilty and enter a plea of not guilty. The matter was remanded to the Municipal Court for further proceedings in connection with defendant's motion. After a hearing in the Municipal Court, during which defendant was represented by his attorney, the motion to withdraw the plea was denied and an order was made returning the matter to the Superior Court. On January 21, 1953, (the time fixed for pronouncement of judgment and sentence) the Superior Court duly pronounced judgment and sentence and made its order suspending the execution of sentence for a term of five years and granted the defendant probation.
Sometime prior to February 19, 1954, defendant was convicted of a federal offense, and was sent to McNeil Island Prison, whereupon the office of the warden notified the San Diego Probation Department. On August 11, 1954, the Superior Court issued a bench warrant ordering defendant's arrest and return to show cause why his probation should not be revoked. No further action was taken at that time. On January 14, 1958, an order was made revoking defendant's probation and issuing a bench warrant for his arrest and return to the court for judgment, the warrant 'to be effective in the State of California only.' On November 5, 1963, by an order entered nunc pro tunc as of November 4, 1963, the order of January 14, 1958, revoking defendant's probation was revoked and defendant was '* * * reinstated to a probationary status for a term of three (3) years, or until November 3, 1966 * * *' The clerk's minutes for November 1, 1963, show that on that date defendant appeared before the court for the pronouncement of judgment and sentence; that his attorney of record did not appear; that defendant requested an attorney and the court appointed one for him and continued the matter until November 4, 1963, when, both defendant and his attorney being present, the above order reinstating probation was made. No appeal was taken from this order which has long since become final.
On January 6, 1964, another bench warrant was issued for defendant's arrest and return to show cause why his probation should not be revoked, 'to be effective in the State of California only.' The warrant referred to John Edward Dautherty, Silver Bow County Jail, Butte, Montana. No further action was taken at that time.
On April 16, 1964, the court made another order reciting that:
'WHEREAS, it appears that on April 13, 1964 the defendant, JOHN EDWARD DAUGHERTY, made a demand for hearing pursuant to the provisions of Section 1381 of the Penal Code of the State of California, and recited the fact that he had been convicted of the crime of Grand Theft in the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Orange, on March 22, 1964, and had on said date been sentenced to State Prison therefor; * * *'
The order then continued by ordering the defendant to appear on April 22, 1964, to show cause why the probation theretofore granted should not be revoked and ordered the San Diego County Sheriff to receive custody of defendant at the California Institution for Men at Chino and have him in court on April 22, 1964.
A hearing was held on April 22, 1964, pursuant to this order, at which time defendant was personally present, represented by a court-appointed attorney and questioned the court's jurisdiction to sentence him. The court, however, made its order revoking the probation granted on November 4, 1963, and made and entered its judgment and order sentencing defendant to be punished by imprisonment in the California Institution for Men for the term prescribed by law.
Defendant's notice of appeal reads as follows:
'THE NOTICE OF APPEAL
'Greeting comes now the defendant John Edward Daugherty and enters his appeal from the conviction of 503 CVC and Judgment entered on all statutory grounds set forth within his case on File and that he be permitted to become Propria Persona.
'Further the aforenamed defendant respectfully requests that a reasonable bail be affixed pending the prosecuting of his appeal.
'Respectfully submitted
'John Edward Daugherty
'Executed on 4/28/64'
First, it will be noted that according to the notice, the appeal is taken from the judgment itself and not from any subsequent order granting or revoking probation. Since in this case judgment and sentence were pronounced on January 21, 1953, and an order made suspending their execution, the judgment itself has long since become final and cannot now be questioned in an appeal. While the order made by the court on April 22, 1964 is in the form of a judgment, it cannot be so considered, but is merely an order made after judgment revoking the suspension of execution of judgment. (People v. Larsen, 144 Cal.App.2d 504, 508, 301 P.2d 298; In re Dearo, 96 Cal.App.2d 141, 214 P.2d 585.) Where sentence is imposed and the execution thereof stayed, a judgment of conviction has been rendered. (People v. Arguello, 59 Cal.2d 475, 476, 30 Cal.Rptr. 333, 381 P.2d 5.) For purposes of our discussion we shall treat this as an appeal from the order revoking probation.
In a coument entitled 'Appellant's Supplemental Opening Brief,' filed by appellant in propria persona, and in another document entitled 'Closing Brief and Motion for Oral Argument,' appellant urges for reversal a number of specifications of error. Most of those having any conceivable merit would be reviewable only on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Sem
...set aside. (People v. Gish [ (1964) ] 230 Cal.App.2d 544, 546 ; People v. Carter [ (1965) ] 233 Cal.App.2d 260, 268 ; People v. Daugherty (1965) 233 Cal.App.2d 284, 289 ; In re Hamm [ (1982) ] 133 Cal.App.3d 60, 66–67 .) People v. Gish, supra, held that the probation maximum stated in secti......
-
Patel v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 75-2108
...obtain earlier parole) unless the trial judge reinstates probation. Cal.Pen.Code § 1203.2 (West Supp.1976); see People v. Daugherty, 233 Cal.App.2d 284, 43 Cal.Rptr. 446 (1965). These consequences make clear that Patel's contention that his "actual punishment" was 6 months in the County jai......
-
People v. Medeiros
...230 Cal.App.2d 544, 546, 41 Cal.Rptr. 155; People v. Carter, supra, 233 Cal.App.2d 260, 268, 43 Cal.Rptr. 440; People v. Daugherty (1965) 233 Cal.App.2d 284, 289, 43 Cal.Rptr. 446; In re Hamm, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d 60, 66-67, 183 Cal.Rptr. 626.) People v. Gish, supra, held that the probatio......
-
People v. Siegel
...Code, § 1203.2; People v. Williams, 24 Cal.2d 848, 151 P.2d 244; People v. Brown, 111 Cal.App.2d 406, 244 P.2d 702; People v. Daugherty, 233 A.C.A. 333, 43 Cal.Rptr. 446.) The jurisdictional fact is the timely revocation of probation. (People v. Williams, supra, p. 854, 151 P.2d 244; People......