People v. Superior Court in and for Marin County, Cr. 2821
| Decision Date | 26 June 1953 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 2821 |
| Citation | 258 P.2d 1087,118 Cal.App.2d 700 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | . PEOPLE v. LESLIE. Civ. 15439. District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California |
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Clarence A. Linn, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Charles E. McClung, Deputy Atty. Gen., for the People.
Steiner, Goldstein & Brann, Philip Steiner, San Francisco, for defendant-respondent.
The people present the same question both by petition for writ of mandate in Civil No. 15439 and by appeal from the order granting defendant Leslie probation in Crim.No. 2821.
On November 2, 1951 Leslie pleaded guilty to a charge of escape from a prison forestry camp in violation of Penal Code, Sec. 4531. At the time of his escape Leslie was under commitment to the state prison following a conviction of felony. Sec. 1203, Pen.Code, provides that probation may not be granted 'to any defendant convicted of the crime of * * * escape from a state prison * * * unless the court shall be satisfied that he has never been * * * convicted of a felony in this State * * *.'
Over objection of the people that the above-quoted portion of sec. 1203 prohibited the granting of probation in this case the trial court after sentencing the defendant suspended the sentence and placed the defendant on probation for five years. The sole question presented is whether a defendant convicted of escape under sec. 4531, Pen.Code, has been convicted of 'escape from a state prison' as that term is used in sec. 1203.
Sec. 4530, Pen.Code, read at the time of defendant's escape: 'Every prisoner confined in a State prison who escapes or attempts to escape therefrom, is punishable by imprisonment in a State prison for a term of not less than one year; said second term of imprisonment to commence from the time he would otherwise have been discharged from said prison.'
Sec. 4531, under which defendant was convicted, reads:
'Every prisoner committed to a State prison who escapes or attempts to escape while being conveyed to or from such prison or any other State prison, or any prison road camp, prison forestry camp, or other prison camp or prison farm or any other place while under the custody of prison officials, officers or employees; or who escapes or attempts to escape from any prison road camp, prison forestry camp, or other prison camp or prison farm or other place while under the custody of prison officials, officers or employees; or who escapes or attempts to escape while at work outside or away from prison under custody of prison officials, officers, or employees is punishable by imprisonment in a State prison for a term of not less than one year and on conviction thereof the term of imprisonment therefor shall commence from the time such prisoner would otherwise have been discharged from said prison.'
Defendant takes the position that only those escapes covered by sec. 4530 are 'escapes from a state prison' within the meaning of Pen.Code, sec. 1203, and that all other escapes covered by sec. 4531 are not 'escapes from a state prison' as that term is used in sec. 1203. Were it not for the statutory and judicial history this argument might be more persuasive.
Secs. 4530 and 4531 are based upon the previous secs. 105 and 106, Pen.Code, for which they were substituted by the legislature in 1941. As originally adopted in 1872, sec. 105 covered escapes from a state prison and sec. 106 covered attempts to escape from a state prison. At the same time sec. 787, Pen.Code, provided: 'The jurisdiction of a criminal action for escaping from prison is in any county of the state.'
In 1921 sec. 106 was amended to provide, Stats.1921, p. 77: 'Every prisoner committed to a state prison for a term less than for life, who escapes or attempts to escape while being conveyed to or from or while confined within such prison or while at work outside such prison under the surveillance of prison guards is guilty of a felony * * *.'
Thus for the first time was imported into sec. 106 the provision expressly providing for the case of escapes of prisoners committed to a state prison as distinct from the provision of sec. 105 dealing with escapes of prisoners confined in a state prison. Shortly thereafter the Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the provision of sec. 787, Pen.Code, above quoted, fixing jurisdiction in any county of the state 'of a criminal action for escaping from prison', included the type of escapes covered by the 1921 amendment to sec. 106 quoted above. In Bradford v. Glenn, 188 Cal. 350, 205 P. 449, the court disposed of this question in the following language:
'We are of the opinion that a person serving a sentence of imprisonment in a state prison is, in contemplation of law, a prisoner therein, as well when at work outside under the surveillance of prison guards as when confined within its walls, so that if he escapes when outside he escapes from a prison, within the meaning of section 787.'
The decision was cited and followed in a series of decisions of the District Court of Appeal in 1924: People v. Vanderburg, 67 Cal.App. 217, 227 P. 621; People v. Upton, 67 Cal.App. 445, 228 P. 50; People v. Johnson, 67 Cal.App. 680, 228 P. 357; People v. Warren, 68 Cal.App. 803, 230 P. 1114.
The legislature first introduced the language 'escape from a state prison' into sec. 1203, Pen.Code in 1931. Stats.1931, pp. 1633-1634. At that time the words ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Beasley
...the People as such 'an order made after judgment' (People v. Orrante, 201 Cal.App.2d 553, 556, 20 Cal.Rptr. 480; People v. Superior Court, 118 Cal.App.2d 700, 703, 258 P.2d 1087; In re Sargen, 135 Cal.App. 402, 27 P.2d 407). It is established law that where an appeal is taken from an order ......
-
People v. Eberhardt
...that particular subdivision. (People v. Villegas (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 700, 703, fn. 2, 92 Cal.Rptr. 663; 13 People v. Superior Court (Leslie) (1953) 118 Cal.App.2d 700, 258 P.2d 1087.) But where imposition of sentence is suspended before the probation order, there is no "order made after ju......
-
People v. Eberhardt
...that particular subdivision. (People v. Villegas (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 700, 703, fn. 2, 92 Cal.Rptr. 663; 12 People v. Superior Court (Leslie) (1953) 118 Cal.App.2d 700, 258 P.2d 1087.) But where imposition of sentence is suspended before the probation order, there is no "order made after ju......
-
People v. Holly
...Cal.App.3d 617, 630, 85 Cal.Rptr. 501, 509; 4 People v. Orrante, 201 Cal.App.2d 553, 556, 20 Cal.Rptr. 480; People v. Superior Court (Leslie), 118 Cal.App.2d 700, 703, 258 P.2d 1087.) The sole issue raised by appellant is whether the trial court erred in finding that section 654, Penal Code......