People v. Siegel

• Decision Date: 01 July 1965
• Docket Number: Cr. 9326
• Citation: 45 Cal.Rptr. 530,235 Cal.App.2d 522
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. David SIEGEL, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 530

45 Cal.Rptr. 530

235 Cal.App.2d 522

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. David SIEGEL, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 9326.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

July 1, 1965.

Days Shinn, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., David B. Stanton, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

FLEMING, Justice.

May a probationer who received a suspended sentence in 1946 and whose probation was revoked in 1948 be required to serve his sentence in 1965?

In April 1946 defendant Siegel pleaded guilty to the crime of issuing a check without sufficient funds. He was sentenced to imprisonment for one year in the Los Angeles county jail, sentence was suspended, and he was placed on three years' probation. By the terms of his probation Siegel was ordered to follow all rules and regulations of the probation department and was granted permission to leave the state.

Subsequently Siegel left the state--with assurances, he now claims, that he need not report periodically to the probation department in order to remain in good standing. Since the original probation records in this case have been destroyed--Penal Code, § 1203.10, permits destruction of probation papers five years after the termination of probation--the only evidence of this alleged assurance consists of Siegel's own statement to that effect.

In May 1948 Siegel's probation officer recommended that the court revoke probation on the ground of desertion and issue a bench warrant for his arrest. The officer's report stated, 'Probationer last reported on Jan. 2, 1948 * * * and Probation Officer has been unable to locate said probationer since that time. It now appears that said probationer has deserted.' On the recommendation of the probation officer probation was revoked in May 1948 and a bench warrant issued for defendant's arrest.

Fifteen years passed.

In July 1963 Siegel again appeared before the Superior Court to answer a charge of issuing checks without sufficient funds, and at that time his 1946 sentence and 1948 revocation of probation were brought before the court. The court ordered a supplemental probation report to cover Siegel's activities during the intervening years. This report showed that in February 1948 Siegel had been convicted in Florida of vagrancy; in November 1948, convicted in Chicago of passing bad checks; in August 1949, convicted in New York of grand larceny; in June 1952, convicted in Chicago federal court of transporting bad checks across state lines; in September 1958, again convicted of a federal offense involving bad checks; in October 1961, again convicted in a Florida federal court of transporting forged checks across state lines. In July 1963, as previously noted, he appeared before the California Superior Court on bad check charges.

After considering this report the court found that the defendant had violated the terms of his probation, the revocation of probation was confirmed, and the 1946 sentence of one year in the county jail was ordered into execution.

Siegel appeals from the order requiring him to serve his original sentence, and he has obtained bail pending appeal. He contends the trial court was without jurisdiction to sentence him some 17 years after the original judgment, and that in any event the trial court abused its discretion in so doing.

(1) The Court Had Jurisdiction

The law is settled that when a court revokes probation within the probationary period, the defendant may be arrested and sentenced any time thereafter even though the probationary period has expired. (Penal 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 v. Mason, 184 Cal.App.2d 182, 7 Cal.Rptr. 525.) Resentencing or execution of the judgment may occur at any time after revocation of probation, regardless of lapse of time. In People v. Brown, 111 Cal.App.2d 406, 244 P.2d 702, resentencing occurred 15 years after defendant had been placed on probation; in people v. Daugherty, 233 A.C.A. 333, 43 Cal.Rptr. 446, 11 years after judgment; and in People v. Mason, 184 Cal.App.2d 182, 7 Cal.Rptr. 525, 11 years after judgment.

Siegel's probation was revoked in 1948 while the original three-year probationary term was in effect, and thus the court in 1963 possessed jurisdiction to order the sentence into execution, even though 17 years had elapsed from the date of the original sentence.

(2) No Abuse of Discretion

The trial court did not abuse its legal discretion in revoking probation. When judgment has been pronounced and sentence suspended upon the grant of probation, probation may be revoked without notice and hearing, and defendant ordered committed pursuant to the judgment. ¹ (In re Davis, 37 Cal.2d 872, 236 P.2d 579; People v. Daugherty, 233 A.C.A. 333, 43 Cal.Rptr. 446.) Although the court may not arbitrarily revoke probation (In re Davis, 37 Cal.2d 872, 236 P.2d 579), it is not required to hold a hearing under rules which are applicable to formal...