Ex Parte Sizelove

California Supreme Court

Ex Parte Sizelove

111 P. 527, 158 Cal. 493, 1910 Cal. LEXIS 408

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 11, 1910

DocketCrim. No. 1641.

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 111 P. 527 (Ex Parte Sizelove) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ex Parte Sizelove, 111 P. 527, 158 Cal. 493, 1910 Cal. LEXIS 408 (Cal. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COIJBT.

The petitioner, on July 20, 1907, pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary, and was on that date placed upon probation under the provisions of section 1203 of the Penal Code. The term of probation was fixed at two years. Within that term he was brought before the superior court charged with a violation of his parole. This charge was dismissed but the court at the same time made an order extending the term of probation two years from July 20, 1909. In the month of June, 1910, petitioner was again brought before the court upon another charge of violating his parole at a date subsequent to July 20, 1909. Upon this charge, and after an informal hearing of the alleged facts of violation of parole, he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment in the state prison at San Quentin, and committed to the custody of the sheriff of Los Angeles, by whom he is now detained.

It is contended that the imprisonment is illegal for the reason that the court lost jurisdiction upon the expiration of the probationary term as originally fixed. We do not agree to this construction of the statute. The power to modify such orders conferred upon the court by subdivision four of section 1203 of the Penal Code includes the power to enlarge the probationary term at any time before it expires.

Writ denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE COIJBT.

The petitioner, on July 20, 1907, pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary, and was on that date placed upon probation under the provisions of section 1203 of the Penal Code. The term of probation was fixed at two years. Within that term he was brought before the superior court charged with a violation of his parole. This charge was dismissed but the court at the same time made an order extending the term of probation two years from July 20, 1909. In the month of June, 1910, petitioner was again brought before the court upon another charge of violating his parole at a date subsequent to July 20, 1909. Upon this charge, and after an informal hearing of the alleged facts of violation of parole, he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment in the state prison at San Quentin, and committed to the custody of the sheriff of Los Angeles, by whom he is now detained.

It is contended that the imprisonment is illegal for the reason that the court lost jurisdiction upon the expiration of the probationary term as originally fixed. We do not agree to this construction of the statute. The power to modify such orders conferred upon the court by subdivision four of section 1203 of the Penal Code includes the power to enlarge the probationary term at any time before it expires.

Writ denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 P. 527, 158 Cal. 493, 1910 Cal. LEXIS 408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-sizelove-cal-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack