People v. Goddard

California Court of Appeal

People v. Goddard

256 P. 440, 83 Cal. App. 40, 1927 Cal. App. LEXIS 637

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMay 12, 1927

DocketDocket No. 1407.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 256 P. 440 (People v. Goddard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Goddard, 256 P. 440, 83 Cal. App. 40, 1927 Cal. App. LEXIS 637 (Cal. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

CASHIN, J.

An application for an order admitting the defendant to bail.

An information was filed in the superior court of Alameda County charging defendant with the commission in that county of a felony, to wit, the crime of bigamy, to which *41 he entered a plea of guilty. Subsequently a motion for an order permitting a withdrawal of the plea was denied. By the judgment of the court he was sentenced to be confined in the state prison at San Quentin. An appeal was thereafter taken from the judgment and an application made to the trial court for an order admitting him to bail pending the appeal, which was denied.

The appeal—which is based on the contention that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to permit the defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty—involves the question of the validity of his previous marriage, it being claimed that certain facts in that connection were unknown to him at the time the plea was entered. Applications of this character are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its determination should not be disturbed except where an abuse of discretion is clearly shown. (In re Preciado, 30 Cal. App. 323 [158 Pac. 1063]; People v. Ephraim, 72 Cal. App. 479 [237 Pac. 801].) In view of the doubtful questions of law presented by the appeal and which were considered by the trial court, we cannot say that its denial of the application was an abuse of discretion.

The application is denied.

Tyler, P. J., and Knight, J., concurred.

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

CASHIN, J.

An application for an order admitting the defendant to bail.

An information was filed in the superior court of Alameda County charging defendant with the commission in that county of a felony, to wit, the crime of bigamy, to which *41 he entered a plea of guilty. Subsequently a motion for an order permitting a withdrawal of the plea was denied. By the judgment of the court he was sentenced to be confined in the state prison at San Quentin. An appeal was thereafter taken from the judgment and an application made to the trial court for an order admitting him to bail pending the appeal, which was denied.

The appeal—which is based on the contention that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to permit the defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty—involves the question of the validity of his previous marriage, it being claimed that certain facts in that connection were unknown to him at the time the plea was entered. Applications of this character are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its determination should not be disturbed except where an abuse of discretion is clearly shown. (In re Preciado, 30 Cal. App. 323 [158 Pac. 1063]; People v. Ephraim, 72 Cal. App. 479 [237 Pac. 801].) In view of the doubtful questions of law presented by the appeal and which were considered by the trial court, we cannot say that its denial of the application was an abuse of discretion.

The application is denied.

Tyler, P. J., and Knight, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 P. 440, 83 Cal. App. 40, 1927 Cal. App. LEXIS 637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-goddard-calctapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack