People v. Marin
Decision Date | 16 January 1957 |
Docket Number | Cr. 1129 |
Citation | 305 P.2d 659,147 Cal.App.2d 625 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Mary MARIN, a/k/a Mary Garcia, Defendant and Appellant. |
Carl T. Rimbaugh, San Bernardino, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth Miller, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Defendant was charged with the offense of presenting false claims to the County Welfare Department, Penal Code Sec. 72, a felony. She entered a plea of not guilty and subsequently withdrew this plea and entered a plea of guilty of violating section 532a of the Penal Code, a misdemeanor and a claimed included offense. The court granted defendant's application for probation on condition that she serve 60 days in the county jail and make restitution or reimbursement to the county in the sum of $544, or 'in such amount as the Probation Officer determines'. She served the 60 days.
The grounds of appeal are that the order for reimbursement as to the amount is not definite and certain; that the ascertainment of the amount is improperly delegated to the probation officer, and accordingly unauthorized; that the requirement of reimbursement is contrary to law and that the evidence is insufficient to support the finding in the amount determined.
The court was authorized to and did fully consider the probation officer's report reviewing the facts and history of the case and recommending the action taken by the court. Sec. 1203, Penal Code; People v. Giles, 70 Cal.App.2d Supp. 872, 161 P.2d 623.
Counsel for defendant, in his brief, attempts to review the evidence which he contends would show that all of the sum of $544 was not illegally collected by virtue of certain alleged claims in reference to defendant's martial status and the number of occupants in the house at the time, and has lodged the record of the testimony taken at the preliminary examination with this court in proof of this claim. He moved to allow its consideration in evidence on this appeal. We have examined it and found no evidence that would assist us in determining the legal issue here presented. Accordingly, the motion should be denied. Suffice it to say, the evidence before the trial judge warranted imposing the order of restitution in the amount indicated. Penal Code Sec. 1203.1; People v. Labarbera, 89 Cal.App.2d 639, 643, 201 P.2d 584. It was the purpose and intent of the trial judge, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Williams
...of probation is expressly authorized by statute (Pen.Code, sec. 1203.1) and is sanctioned by case authority (People v. Marin, 147 Cal.App.2d 625, 626, 305 P.2d 659).' (People v. Flores (1961) 197 Cal.App.2d 611, 616--617, 17 Cal.Rptr. 382, 385; and see also People v. Sidwell (1945) 27 Cal.2......
-
People v. Hedgecock
...conditions of probation if Hedgecock presented new evidence which warranted such a modification. (See, e.g., People v. Marin (1957) 147 Cal.App.2d 625, 627, 305 P.2d 659.) It is well-established that sentencing is a critical stage of the proceedings at which the accused is constitutionally ......
-
People v. Peterson, Docket No. 19746
...of probation is expressly authorized by statute (Pen.Code, sec. 1203.1) and is sanctioned by case authority (People v. Marin, 147 Cal.App.2d 625, 626, 305 P.2d 659 (1957)). 'If the facts and circumstances indicate any error in the amount of restitution ordered or an injustice appears, the t......
-
People v. Cervantes
...that the trial court had in mind a specific sum and had considered the appellant's ability to pay. (Ibid.) Likewise, People v. Marin (1957) 147 Cal.App.2d 625, 305 P.2d 659 involved a limiting construction of what otherwise might have been interpreted as a delegation of discretion to the pr......