People v. Smith
| Decision Date | 22 September 1961 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 3152 |
| Citation | 16 Cal.Rptr. 111,195 Cal.App.2d 789 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jimmy Lee SMITH, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Stanley G. Lerner, Carmichael, under appointment by the Third District Court of Appeal, for appellant.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., by Doris H. Maier, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Jimmy Lee Smith was found guilty by the trial court, sitting without a jury, of a violation of section 4531 of the Penal Code. (Escape by a prisoner committed to a state prison from a prison forestry camp.) He has appealed from the judgment entered.
Pursuant to a request for the appointment of counsel this court appointed Mr. Stanley G. Lerner of the Sacramento Bar to represent Jimmy Lee Smith on this appeal. Mr. Lerner has informed this court after a thorough perusal of the record and an investigation of the law that the appeal is without merit. This court has made an independent examination of the record and is convinced that the evidence is sufficient to support the judgment and that no prejudicial error was committed.
It appears from the record that on June 22, 1959, Smith, an inmate of Folsom Prison, was assigned to a prison forestry camp in Calaveras County under the supervision of Lieutenant Frank Mendoza of the Department of Corrections. Smith was instructed to work with a crew under the charge of Lester Bragg of the Department of Natural Resources. He left the work area without permission. He was not apprehended for some five months.
While Smith was working under the supervision of Bragg, he was under the constructive custody of Lieutenant Mendoza and therefore the conviction for eacape from the custody of a prison officer under section 4531 was proper. People v. Haskins, 177 Cal.App.2d 84, 2 Cal.Rptr. 34, section 4532, escape from a county jail.
The judgment is affirmed
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State in Interest of M. S.
...30:8--36 (1877), or from a work release program, N.J.S.A. 30:8--53 (1968), are also punishable as escape. See People v. Smith, 195 Cal.App.2d 789, 16 Cal.Rptr. 111 (D.Ct.App.1961); People v. Hadley, 88 Cal.App.2d 734, 199 P.2d 382 (D.Ct.App.1948); Saylor v. Commonwealth, 122 Ky. 776, 93 S.W......
-
United States v. Leonard, 73-1769.
...67 S.Ct. 1197, 91 L.Ed. 1832 (1947)17; cf. People v. Owens, 236 Cal.App.2d 403, 46 Cal.Rptr. 91, 92, (1965)18; People v. Smith, 195 Cal. App.2d 789, 790, 16 Cal.Rptr. 111 (1961).19 The facts here more than satisfy the "custody" requirement, especially in view of a specific statute, applicab......
-
State v. Holbrook
...Labrum, 25 Cal.App.3d 105, 101 Cal.Rptr. 602 (1972); People v. Owens, 236 Cal.App.2d 403, 46 Cal.Rptr. 91 (1965); People v. Smith, 195 Cal.App.2d 789, 16 Cal.Rptr. 111 (1961); and People v. Haskins, 177 Cal.App.2d 84, 2 Cal.Rptr. 34 Since the indictment against defendant, Walker, (as square......
-
People v. Owens
...and its prison officials, officers, or employees. The conviction of escape under Section 4530(b) was proper. (People v. Smith, 195 Cal.App.2d 789, 790, 16 Cal.Rptr. 111.) The judgment is COUGHLIN and WHELAN, JJ., concur. ...