People v. Plummer

• Decision Date: 14 November 1963
• Docket Number: Cr. 1887
• Citation: 222 Cal.App.2d 280,35 Cal.Rptr. 53
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Elzie Lee PLUMMER, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 53

35 Cal.Rptr. 53

222 Cal.App.2d 280

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Elzie Lee PLUMMER, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 1887.

District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, California.

Nov. 14, 1963.

Linley, Duffy & Shifflet, El Cajon, and Lynn R. McDougal, La Mesa, for defendant and appellant.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., and William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

GRIFFIN, Presiding Justice.

Defendant-appellant, represented by counsel, entered a plea of guilty in the municipal court to one count of issuing checks without sufficient funds. Count two was dismissed. Defendant, in propria persona, appealed from the judgment rendered in the superior court, denying probation and committing him to the California Institution for Men at Chino. He requested the appointment of counsel on appeal, and counsel who represented him in the superior court and at the preliminary examination was appointed. He filed a memorandum in lieu of an opening brief. Therein he reviews the facts and contentions attempted to be raised by defendant, i. e., that in correspondence with defendant, defendant proposes as the grounds for his appeal: (1) that count two of the complaint in the municipal court incorrectly alleged that defendant did 'wilfully, with intent to defraud Verna Jones, an individual, and Mr. and Mrs. Willard Jones, doing business as Helix Liquor,' when in fact he gave the check to Mr. Willard Jones and did not see Mrs. Jones at that time; (2) that this check was made by Willard Jones and merely signed by defendant and that said check was given in exchange for an NSF check which defendant had previously negotiated to Mr. Jones and thus no money or goods were received at that time; (3) that the court which imposed sentence upon defendant was prejudiced by his prior record and was in effect sentencing him for his past crime for which he had 'paid his debt to society' and accordingly the court erred in denying him probation; (4) that the plea of guilty was obtained by promise and coercion.

Counsel for defendant properly concedes that count two was dismissed and accordingly any claimed defect in it was immaterial; that any such claimed defect in count one would be immaterial where he had entered a plea of guilty to the charge. Furthermore, a judgment entered on a plea of guilty is not appealable on the merits; irregularities not going to the jurisdiction or legality of the proceedings will not be reviewed. (Stephens v. Toomey, 51 Cal.2d 864, 865, 338 P.2d 182.) See also People v. Dysart, 39 Cal.App.2d 287, 102 P.2d 1091.)

An accused desiring consideration of a question of fact surrounding the commission of a crime should not plead guilty, but should stand trial and appeal from the judgment if convicted. (Berg v. United States, 9 Cir., 176 F.2d 122.) In the consideration of the...