People v. Young
| Citation | 233 P.2d 155,105 Cal.App.2d 612 |
| Decision Date | 24 July 1951 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 2267 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. YOUNG. |
Mark Joseph and Jared W. Hawkins, Jr., Modesto, for appellant.
Doris H. Maier, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Appellant was informed against by the District Attorney of Stanislaus County for the crime of robbery in the felonious and forcible taking from the presence of Johanna Reyes of a radio, and it was further charged that at the time of the commission of the offense he was armed with a deadly weapon, to-wit, a 22-caliber rifle. Upon trial he was found guilty as charged and the jury fixed the offense as robbery of the first degree. Application was made for probation and the same was denied, but in this connection it fairly appears from the record that the denial was based upon a holding by the trial court that under the provisions of Section 1203 of the Penal Code it lacked jurisdiction to grant probation. Appellant was sentenced for the term prescribed by law and from this judgment, from the order denying new trial and from the order denying probation he has appealed.
The facts are as follows: About 9 P.M. on July 14, 1950, appellant and a companion went to the home of Mrs. Reyes. When she asked what they wanted, appellant, who then had in his hand a 22-caliber rifle which contained a number of cartridges in the magazine, stated to her that it was a stick-up. The testimony of Mrs. Reyes was that appellant The men entered the house and appellant's companion did the talking. He demanded money and when told there was none, asked where the safe was. When told there was no safe, he walked with Mrs. Reyes to where her purse was placed, but obtained no money therefrom. The men then left but as they left defendant, who carried the gun at all times, took a table radio with him.
On the appeal from the judgment and from the order denying new trial appellant contends only that the evidence is without conflict that because of intoxication he could not have possessed the necessary intent for the commission of the crime charged. That is not the state of the record. His intoxication, if it existed, was voluntary and there is sufficient evidence in the record to sustain a finding by the jury that he was not intoxicated at all. There is no merit to this contention.
With respect to the appeal from the order denying probation it has often been determined that no appeal lies from such order. But it has also been held that where the denial of probation is for lack of jurisdiction the order may be reviewed on appeal from the judgment. People v. Jones, 87 Cal.App. 482, 262 P. 361; People v. Freithofer, 103 Cal.App. 165, 284 P. 484. We shall so treat it, for that such is the situation presented here is not in dispute. This is manifest from the remarks of the trial judge that he was basing his refusal to consider an application for probation and his denial thereof 'solely upon the court's construction of Section 1203 [Penal Code], which in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rodgers
...22-caliber gun to be a deadly weapon are: People v. Sandoval, 222 Cal.App.2d 348, 35 Cal.Rptr. 227, 229 (1963); and People v. Young, 105 Cal.App.2d 612, 233 P.2d 155 (1951). It is not a violation of the constitutional guarantee of a jury trial to instruct the jury on matters of law. Singh v......
-
People v. Hollis
...361; People v. Ralls, 21 Cal.App.2d 674, 678, 70 P.2d 265; People v. Erickson, 74 Cal.App.2d 339, 340, 168 P.2d 417; People v. Young, 105 Cal.App.2d 612, 613, 233 P.2d 155; Schaefer v. Superior Court, 113 Cal.App.2d 428, 438, 248 P.2d 450. And see 29 Cal.Jur.2d 359, Judgments § For purpose ......
-
People v. Washington
...578, 591--592, 248 P.2d 12) but to include the employment of a firearm to threaten, as well as to shoot or to strike (People v. Young, 105 Cal.App.2d 612, 614, 233 P.2d 155). Thus, while anyone who uses a firearm must necessarily be armed with it the converse need not be true. For the purpo......
-
People v. Spencer
...within the meaning of section 12022.5 includes 'display with menace during the course of the robbery.' (See also, People v. Young, 105 Cal.App.2d 612, 233 P.2d 155.) Appellant contends that the allegation in the amended information 'that at the time of the commission o the (robbery) said de......