People v. Frank, Cr. 4391
| Decision Date | 22 November 1949 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 4391 |
| Citation | 211 P.2d 350,94 Cal.App.2d 740 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. FRANK. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Gladys Towles Root, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Fred N. Hoswer, Attorney General, and Henry A. Dietz, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.
Defendant was charged by information with constributing to the delinquency of a minor, section 702, Welfare and Institutions Code, a misdemeanor. He waived preliminary hearing and pleaded 'guilty as charged in the information as deemed filed.' He also waived time for sentence and applied for probation. Thereafter, the court pronounced judgment and sentence as follows
While defendant in pro per appeals from the order granting probation, that order is contained in and made a part of the judgment of the trial court imposing sentence; hence it will be assumed that this appeal is from such judgment.
It is here urged that the condition prohibiting appellant from the practice of medicine while on probation is unreasonable and beyond the power of the trial judge to invoke.
Appellant pleaded guilty to the commission of a lewd and lascivious act upon the person of a ten year old girl, who at the time was in a plaster cast. The record discloses that appellant was a pediatrician and that two psychiatrists were appointed to examine him in connection with another matter arising out of the instant transaction but which has since been dropped.
Appellant was prosecuted under section 702 of the Welfare and Institutions Code which provides:
In People v. Blankenship, 16 Cal.App.2d 606, 609, 610, 61 P.2d 352, 353, wherein defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of rape and was granted probation upon condition that he submit to a vasectomy, it was contended that this was an unreasonable condition to be imposed as a prerequisite for probation.
The court there held otherwise, and enunciated some of the fundamental principles relating to the matter of probation:
'It must, in the first place, be conceded that the granting or withholding of probation is a matter that rests entirely in the sound discretion of the trial court. Sec. 1203, Pen.Code; People v. Judson, 128 Cal.App. 768, 774, 18 P.2d 379. In the second place, probation is not a right...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Williams
...People v. Stanley (1958) 162 Cal.App.2d 416, 420--421, 327 P.2d 973, denial of telephone to convicted bookmaker; People v. Frank (1949) 94 Cal.App.2d 740, 211 P.2d 350, practice of medicine by M.D. convicted of contributing to delinquency of a minor; People v. Blankenship (1936) 16 Cal.App.......
-
Osslo, In re
...supra, 50 Cal.2d 75, 103(30), 323 P.2d 397, 413; In re Hays (1953), 120 Cal.App.2d 308, 310(4), 260 P.2d 1033; People v. Frank (1949), 94 Cal.App.2d 740, 742, 211 P.2d 350; Lee v. Superior Court (1949), 89 Cal.App.2d 716, 717(1), 201 P.2d 882; People v. Blankenship (1936), 16 Cal.App.2d 606......
-
U.S. v. Pastore
...359 (9th Cir. 1963) (defendant, who impersonated FBI agent, prohibited from going back into repossession business); People v. Frank, 94 Cal.App.2d 740, 211 P.2d 350 (1949) (doctor, who committed lewd act on ten-year old patient, required to abstain from practice of medicine); Stone v. Unite......
-
U.S. v. Thomas
...acts as a check on the wide discretion of the district court in setting the conditions of probation. See, e.g., People v. Frank, 94 Cal.App.2d 740, 211 P.2d 350 (1949). There are already in place, however, what appear to be adequate checks on the district court's power: appellate review and......