Robinson, Application of
| Decision Date | 22 June 1956 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 3235 |
| Citation | 142 Cal.App.2d 484,298 P.2d 656 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Application of William P. ROBINSON, For A Writ of Habeas Corpus. |
Harold J. Truett, San Rafael, for petitioner.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., of California, Clarence A. Linn, Asst. Atty. Gen., Arlo E. Smith, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondents.
Petitioner was found guilty of the crime of forcible rape, Penal Code § 261(3), and applied for probation. On April 24, 1953, the court imposed a sentence of one year in the county jail, suspended the execution of the sentence and granted petitioner probation for a term of three years. On May 14, 1954, after proceedings regularly taken, the court revoked petitioner's probation and sentenced him to the state prison for the term prescribed by law. Petitioner is now confined in the state prison at San Quentin pursuant to this judgment.
Where a judgment authorized by law has been pronounced and its execution suspended before granting probation Penal Code section 1203.2 provides that upon revocation of probation 'the judgment shall be in full force and effect' and it has been held that the court under such circumstances has no power to impose a different judgment on revoking probation. In re Loros, 48 Cal.App.2d 680, 120 P.2d 69.
In this case, however, the judgment first imposed by the court, imprisonment in the county jail for one year, was one which the statute, Penal Code § 264, gave the court no power to impose, since the only punishment provided therein for forcible rape is imprisonment in the state prison for not more than fifty years. The people therefore argue, and we believe correctly, that the court had the power to impose the only legally proper sentence on petitioner upon the revocation of his probation.
Petitioner argues that the original sentence, though erroneous, was not void and that the time for appeal therefrom having expired such judgment was final when the court imposed the second judgment and was beyond the power of the court to correct. Petitioner cites In re Reed, 143 Cal. 634, 77 P. 660, in which case the sentence had been for seven years where the minimum sentence provided by law was ten. The court held in that case that the judgment though erroneous was not void, saying 143 Cal. at page 635, 77 P. at page 661:
Giving the Reed case its full effect it is not controlling here. As the attorney general points out, in the Reed case the sentence was to the state prison and, since the court had power to sentence the defendant to the state prison, the court was correct in saying: 'The judgment does not impose any kind of punishment different from that prescribed by the Code'. In our case the court by its first judgment purported to sentence the petitioner to the county jail, a power which it did not possess, and therefore did attempt to impose a kind of punishment different from that prescribed by the code. The court had no more power to sentence petitioner to be confined in the county jail for this offense than it would have had to sentence him to confinement in a state hospital.
Authority is ample that when the sentence is beyond the power of the court to impose it is void...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Serrato
...10 Cal.App.3d 689, 692, 89 Cal.Rptr. 237; People v. Orrante (1962), 201 Cal.App.2d 553, 557, 20 Cal.Rptr. 480; In re Robinson (1956), 142 Cal.App.2d 484, 298 P.2d 656.) At oral argument defendants cited cases which have discussed the res judicata effect of an order of dismissal by a trial c......
-
People v. Belton, Cr. A
...impose it is void and the court has the power at a later time to impose the legally provided sentence. . . ." (In re Robinson (1956) 142 Cal.App.2d 484, 486, 298 P.2d 656, 658. See Kennedy v. United States (9 Cir. 1964) 330 F.2d 26, 29.) The courts have spoken on this issue before. In Bozza......
-
People v. Superior Court (Duran)
...the initial erroneous sentence. (See also People v. Massengale (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 689, 693, 89 Cal.Rptr. 237; In re Robinson (1956) 142 Cal.App.2d 484, 486, 298 P.2d 656.) In People v. Taylor (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 349, 354, 93 Cal.Rptr. 257, the court, relying upon Bozza v. United States (......
-
People v. Hickey, Cr. 3881
...462, 412 P.2d 806; People v. Massengale, supra ; People v. Orrante (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 553, 20 Cal.Rptr. 480; In re Robinson (1956) 142 Cal.App.2d 484, 298 P.2d 656.) We find no constitutional infirmity involved in remand of the prior convictions to the trial court for a retrial limited t......