People v. Laborwits

California Court of Appeal

People v. Laborwits

240 P. 802, 74 Cal. App. 401, 1925 Cal. App. LEXIS 163

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedSeptember 21, 1925

DocketDocket No. 1221.

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 240 P. 802 (People v. Laborwits) 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. Laborwits, 240 P. 802, 74 Cal. App. 401, 1925 Cal. App. LEXIS 163 (Cal. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

CURTIS, J.

The indictment against appellant contained six counts, each charging him with the crime of forgery. Appellant plead guilty to the charge contained in count one, and the other five counts were ordered off the calendar. Thereupon, and before judgment, appellant asked leave to file an application for probation, which was denied by the court.

The only point made by appellant on this appeal is that there was an abuse of the trial court’s discretion in refus *402 ing to allow the defendant the privilege of filing an application for probation. A similar question was before the appellate court in the case of People v. Dunlop, 27 Cal. App. 460 [150 Pac. 389], wherein the court held that the action of the trial court in refusing to hear such an application was not reviewable on appeal. The court, on page 470 of its opinion declared the law as follows: “The action of the court in refusing to entertain an application by the defendant for probation after his conviction or of taking testimony or the report of the probation officer of the court with a view to admitting the accused to probation cannot be reviewed. The matter of admitting a person convicted of crime to probation rests entirely in the discretion of the trial court, as does likewise the question whether any proceedings shall be entertained by the court to that end. (Pen. Code, sec. 1203.) ”

We are in accord with the appellate court in its construction of section 1203 of the Penal Code, and, upon the authority of this case, the judgment is affirmed.

Conrey, P. J., concurred.

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

CURTIS, J.

The indictment against appellant contained six counts, each charging him with the crime of forgery. Appellant plead guilty to the charge contained in count one, and the other five counts were ordered off the calendar. Thereupon, and before judgment, appellant asked leave to file an application for probation, which was denied by the court.

The only point made by appellant on this appeal is that there was an abuse of the trial court’s discretion in refus *402 ing to allow the defendant the privilege of filing an application for probation. A similar question was before the appellate court in the case of People v. Dunlop, 27 Cal. App. 460 [150 Pac. 389], wherein the court held that the action of the trial court in refusing to hear such an application was not reviewable on appeal. The court, on page 470 of its opinion declared the law as follows: “The action of the court in refusing to entertain an application by the defendant for probation after his conviction or of taking testimony or the report of the probation officer of the court with a view to admitting the accused to probation cannot be reviewed. The matter of admitting a person convicted of crime to probation rests entirely in the discretion of the trial court, as does likewise the question whether any proceedings shall be entertained by the court to that end. (Pen. Code, sec. 1203.) ”

We are in accord with the appellate court in its construction of section 1203 of the Penal Code, and, upon the authority of this case, the judgment is affirmed.

Conrey, P. J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 P. 802, 74 Cal. App. 401, 1925 Cal. App. LEXIS 163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-laborwits-calctapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack