People v. McClean
Decision Date | 26 January 1955 |
Docket Number | Cr. 5259 |
Citation | 279 P.2d 87,130 Cal.App.2d 439 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. M. W. McLEAN, Jr., and Bertha A. Germon, Defendants and Appellants. |
Jesse A. Hamilton, San Monica, for appellants.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Deputy Atty. Gen., S. Ernest Roll, Dist. Atty., Jere J. Sullivan and Robert Wheeler, Dep. Dist. Attys., Los Angeles, for respondent.
Defendants appeal from orders revoking probation and from judgments thereafter entered sentencing McClean to state prison and Bertha Germon to the institution for women. The orders revoking probation made before rendition of the judgments are not appealable and the appeals therefrom will be dismissed. Those orders are reviewable on the appeals from the judgments. People v. Robinson, 43 Cal.2d 132, 271 P.2d 865.
In March 1951 defendants pleaded guilty to one count of grand theft and to two counts of forgery. The grand theft charge was that defendants had feloniously taken $27,564.11, the property of Flintridge Heights Mutual Water Company, Inc., a corporation. One of the forgery charges was that defendants had forged a grant deed and had uttered the same with intent to cheat and defraud Benedict Heights, Inc., a corporation, and its shareholders and creditors. The other forgery charge was that defendants had forged a grant deed and had uttered the same with intent to cheat and defraud Flintridge Heights, Inc., a corporation, and its shareholders and creditors. The prosecution arose out of the activities of defendants in the operation of three corporations--Benedict Heights, Inc., Flintridge Heights, Inc., and Flintridge Heights Mutual Water Company, Inc.--which they apparently controlled. Prior to these proceedings Flintridge Heights, Inc., had been adjudicated bankrupt.
On May 2, 1951 proceedings were suspended and defendants were granted probation for a period of 6 years on condition that each defendant must report as required and must cooperate with the probation officer and anyone designated by him in some proposition to work out the situation to the satisfaction of all persons concerned. On granting probation, the judge said to defendants:
On October 31, 1951, defendants being present, the order granting probation was modified as to each defendant as follows:
On December 3, 1953, defendants being present, the probation officer reported to the court that the matter had been reduced to judgment and that there was now a judgment in the amount of $29,700 against defendants jointly and severally.
On January 28, 1954 the terms of probation were modified as follows:
At that time the court stated to defendants:
'I have read Judge Carter's opinion. 1 I am thoroughly in accord with some of the conclusions if not all of the conclusions that he has made. * * * He states that there is 'A sorry tale of fraud, reckless violation of law and utter disregard of the rights of creditors.
'[']Funds of the corporation [Flintridge Heights, Inc.] were handled by various defendants as if they were the personal property of the defendants. The evidence shows the Court finds a conspiracy between the four remaining defendants' including these two before this court, ----
On June 24, 1954, defendants being present, the matter came on for hearing on the report of the probation officer as to the progress of probation. The court stated:
* * *
'[W]e have the statement before the Court here that the defendants are in possession of $120,000.00 or assets worth that. * * *
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Williams
...by the provisions of section 1203.1 of the Penal Code, the salient portions of which are set forth in People v. McClean (1955) 130 Cal.App.2d 439 at page 444, 279 P.2d 87 at page 91, as follows: 'The court, in the order granting probation, may impose 'such terms and conditions as it shall d......
-
People v. Cervantes
...expressly found that the defendant had had a fair hearing below as to the amount of restitution. (Ibid.) Finally, People v. McClean (1955) 130 Cal.App.2d 439, 279 P.2d 87, also relied upon by the court in Williams, does not stand for the proposition that the probation officer may properly d......
-
Robert M., In re
...revoke probation automatically...." (Id., 461 U.S. at p. ----, 103 S.Ct. at p. 2071, 76 L.Ed.2d, at p. 230; cf. People v. McClean (1955) 130 Cal.App.2d 439, 444-445, 279 P.2d 87.) Several courts have indicated it would be unjust to revoke the probation of a person addicted to alcohol for vi......
-
State v. Stalheim
...where the victim had lost a leg, even though a civil action for damages was pending against the defendant.In People v. McClean, 130 Cal.App.2d 439, 279 P.2d 87 (1955), the condition was that the defendants give 'value received' to the persons defrauded. This condition was subsequently modif......