People v. Swann

Decision Date27 February 1963
Docket NumberCr. 8551
Citation28 Cal.Rptr. 830,213 Cal.App.2d 447
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. James Richard SWANN, Defendant and Respondent.
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., William B. McKesson, Dist. Atty., Los Angeles, Harry Wood and Harry B. Sondheim, Deputy Dist. Attys., for plaintiff and appellant.

Ellery E. Cuff, Public Defender, Los Angeles, Kathryn J. McDonald and James L. McCormick, Deputy Public Defenders, for defendant and respondent.

BURKE, Presiding Justice.

This is an appeal by the People from the order granting defendant's motion under section 995 of the Penal Code to set aside the information.

Defendant was charged by information with two counts of forgery in violation of Penal Code section 470, a felony. The charges arose out of defendant's alleged use of an oil company credit card on two occasions without the knowledge or permission of the party to whom the credit card had been issued.

The facts, as developed in the preliminary hearing, show that Robert Scott Griffith lost a Standard Oil credit card which apparently was subsequently used by defendant to make purchases at a gas station of $31.03 on September 25, 1961, and $2.52 on October 5, 1961. In the course of making these purchases defendant, without permission, signed Robert Griffith's name on two credit invoices and obtained merchandise or service. A police officer testified at the preliminary hearing that defendant admitted signing the two credit invoices with the name 'Robert Scott Griffith.'

Penal Code section 484a became effective on September 15, 1961. That section provides in part:

'* * * (b) Any person who:

* * *

* * *

'(6) Knowingly uses or attempts to use for the purposes of obtaining goods, property, services or anything of value, a credit card which was obtained, or is held by the user, under circumstances which would constitute a crime under paragraphs (1), (2) or (3) of this subdivision, is also guilty of a misdemeanor if the total amount of goods, property or services or other things of value so obtained by such person does not exceed fifty dollars ($50), or is also guilty of a felony, if the total amount of goods, property or services or other things of value so obtained by such person exceeds fifty dollars ($50).'

The sole question presented by this appeal is whether the acts of defendant constitute only a violation of Penal Code section 484a, a misdemeanor, and not in addition a violation of Penal Code section 470, a felony, thus making defendant subject to prosecution under either section.

It is not disputed that the acts of defendant out of which the forgery charges arose occurred subsequent to the effective date of section 484a, Penal Code, and did involve less than $50 value of goods or services.

The People contend that defendant has violated both sections (Pen.Code, §§ 484a and 470) and that since the acts of defendant constitute the separate crimes of theft and forgery he should be subject to punishment under either statute. It is acknowledged that under Penal Code section 654 he could not be punished for violations of both sections for the same transaction. The People maintain they have a right to elect to prosecute defendant under the felony statute.

We believe the People do not have the power to prosecute under the general felony statute in a case such as this where the facts of the alleged offense parallel the acts proscribed by a specific statute. The Supreme Court quoted an earlier case in In re Williamson, 43 Cal.2d 651, at 654, 276 P.2d 593, at 594, as follows: "* * * where the general statute standing alone would include the same matter as the special act, and thus conflict with it, the special act will be considered as an exception to the general statute whether it was passed before or after such general enactment. Where the special statute is later it will be regarded as an exception to or qualification of the prior general one; * * *."

In the case of In re Joiner, 180 Cal.App.2d 250, 4 Cal.Rptr. 667, the defendant had taken his automobile to a garage to be repaired. He later entered the premises of the garage after closing hours and retook possession of his automobile. Upon being apprehended Joiner was charged with burglary and grand theft. The court held that the superior court was without jurisdiction to hear the prosecution on the felony charges because the defendant's conduct came within the provisions of section 537d of the Penal Code making it a misdemeanor for anyone to obtain a vehicle held under lien by trick and device. The quotation from In re Williamson, supra, cited above, was held applicable to that case.

In the case of People v. Wood, 161 Cal.App.2d 24, 325 P.2d 1014, a defendant was convicted of eight felony counts of violating section 115 of the Penal Code for knowingly filing false documents with the Department of Motor Vehicles. The question raised was whether the defendant should have been charged with the felony offense or with a violation of section 131, subdivision d, of the Vehicle Code declaring it to be a misdemeanor to make a false statement in any document required to be filed with the Motor Vehicle Department. The court held, at page 29, 325 P.2d at page 1017, quoting from County of Placer v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 50 Cal.2d 182, 189, 323 P.2d 753, 757, "Where the terms of a later specific statute apply to a situation covered by an earlier general one, the later specific statute controls. [Citation.] As we held in Rose v. State of California, 19 Cal.2d 713, 723, 724, 123 P.2d 505, 512: 'It is well settled, also, that a general provision is controlled by one that it special, the latter being treated as an exception to the former. A specific provision relating to a particular subject will govern in respect to that subject, as against a general provision, although the latter, standing alone, would be broad enough to include the subject to which the more particular provision relates."'

People v. Silk, 138 Cal.App.2d Supp. 899, 291 P.2d 1013, involved a determination of whether the defendant was properly charged with two counts of violation of section 484 of the Penal Code, petty theft of $25, rather than section 2007 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. The defendant in applying for aid failed to disclose...

To continue reading

Request your trial
55 cases
  • People v. Brown
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • March 13, 1986
    ...... Defendant had an absolute defense to the charges under the doctrine [177 Cal.App.3d 546] expressed in an earlier Court of Appeal case, People v. Swann (1963) 213 Cal.App.2d 447, 28 Cal.Rptr. 830, of which counsel was inexplicably unaware. Counsel's failing withdrew an obviously meritorious defense without tactical, or any, justification. (Williams, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 177, 81 Cal.Rptr. 784, 460 P.2d 984.) 8 .         Here we ......
  • People v. Cline
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • December 23, 1969
    ......465, 34 Cal.Rptr. 863, 386 P.2d 487); and the rule that the provisions of former section 484a of the Penal Code precluded a prosecution under section 470 for forgery where a credit card was involved, as enunciated in People v. Swann (1963), 213 Cal.App.2d 447, 449, 28 Cal.Rptr. 830 (1 Cal.3d at pp. 173 and 177, 81 Cal.Rptr. 784, 460 P.2d 984). .         In the present case there is no indication, other than from the result, that defendant's counsel was ignorant of the general principles governing multiple punishment. ......
  • State v. Gledhill
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • June 10, 1975
    ......the forgery statutes or those making it a crime to obtain goods by false pretenses. People v. James, 178 Colo. 401, 497 P.2d 1256 (Sup.Ct.1972); People [342 A.2d 167] v. Couch, 179 Colo. 324, 500 P.2d 967 (Sup.Ct.1972); State v. Pearson, ... See People v. Swann, 213 Cal.App.2d 447, 28 Cal.Rptr. 830 (D.C.App.1963); People v. Ali, 66 Cal.2d 277, 57 Cal.Rptr. 348, 424 P.2d 932 (Sup.Ct.1967); State v. Wright, ......
  • People v. Superior Court
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • January 6, 1971
    ......348, 424 P.2d 932; People v. Scott (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 589, 591--592, 66 Cal.Rptr. 432; People v. Churchill (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 448, 452--453, 63 Cal.Rptr. 312 (overruled on another issue People v. Bauer (1969) 1 Cal.3d 368, 378, 82 Cal.Rptr. 357, 461 P.2d 637); and People v. Swann (1963) 213 Cal.App.2d 447, 449--451, 28 Cal.Rptr. 830; but cf. People v. Churchill, supra, 255 Cal.App.2d at pp. 453--454, 63 Cal.Rptr. 312.) .         [14 Cal.App.3d 949] In People v. Gilbert, supra, the court expressly ruled, 'This overlap of provisions carrying conflicting penalties ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 2 More on Charging Documents
    • United States
    • Full Court Press The California Criminal Motions Survival Guide
    • Invalid date
    ...with the criminal act involved, it will control or supersede any general statute on the subject matter. People v. Swann (1963) 213 Cal.App.2d 447, 449; People v. Gilbert (1969) 1 Cal.3d 475, 481; In re Williamson (1954) 43 Cal.2d 651. However, under federal rules, this principle does not ap......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT