People v. La Marr

California Court of Appeal

People v. La Marr

1 P.2d 27, 115 Cal. App. 138, 1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 652

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 22, 1931

DocketDocket No. 2073.

StatusPublished

This text of 1 P.2d 27 (People v. La Marr) 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. La Marr, 1 P.2d 27, 115 Cal. App. 138, 1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 652 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

CRAIG, J.

Upon a plea of guilty appellant was permitted to file an application for probation, which was denied, and he appealed upon oral notice following an unsuccessful attempt to obtain a modification of sentence.

Said motion, and the ground of this appeal, arose from an alleged inadvertence in that he pleaded guilty to a violation of the California Vehicle Act but that judgment was entered upon a count of the same information charging grand theft. It clearly appears from the record that appellant’s co-defendant pleaded guilty to the charge, as stated to him by the court, that he did “unlawfully steal and take away an automobile”. In the same proceeding, and immediately thereafter, the court asked appellant: “How do you plead, Mr. Raymus, guilty or not guilty to the same charge?” To which question Raymus answered “Guitly”. He subsequently offered no proof, by affidavit or otherwise except the oral suggestion of substituted coun *140 sel, that he had not voluntarily pleaded guilty to a charge of grand theft. There was no abuse of discretion upon the part of the trial court in denying a motion to set it aside.

Other matters discussed by appellant are not properly a part of, nor included in the record; and they cannot be considered upon appeal. (People v. Cruse, 24 Cal. App. 497 [141 Pac. 936]; People v. Petros, 25 Cal. App, 236 [143 Pac. 246].)

The judgment is affirmed.

Works, P. J., and Archbald, J., pro tern., concurred.

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

CRAIG, J.

Upon a plea of guilty appellant was permitted to file an application for probation, which was denied, and he appealed upon oral notice following an unsuccessful attempt to obtain a modification of sentence.

Said motion, and the ground of this appeal, arose from an alleged inadvertence in that he pleaded guilty to a violation of the California Vehicle Act but that judgment was entered upon a count of the same information charging grand theft. It clearly appears from the record that appellant’s co-defendant pleaded guilty to the charge, as stated to him by the court, that he did “unlawfully steal and take away an automobile”. In the same proceeding, and immediately thereafter, the court asked appellant: “How do you plead, Mr. Raymus, guilty or not guilty to the same charge?” To which question Raymus answered “Guitly”. He subsequently offered no proof, by affidavit or otherwise except the oral suggestion of substituted coun *140 sel, that he had not voluntarily pleaded guilty to a charge of grand theft. There was no abuse of discretion upon the part of the trial court in denying a motion to set it aside.

Other matters discussed by appellant are not properly a part of, nor included in the record; and they cannot be considered upon appeal. (People v. Cruse, 24 Cal. App. 497 [141 Pac. 936]; People v. Petros, 25 Cal. App, 236 [143 Pac. 246].)

The judgment is affirmed.

Works, P. J., and Archbald, J., pro tern., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 P.2d 27, 115 Cal. App. 138, 1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-la-marr-calctapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack