People v. Warren

California Court of Appeal

People v. Warren

230 P. 1114, 68 Cal. App. 803, 1924 Cal. App. LEXIS 303

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedSeptember 16, 1924

DocketCrim. No. 796.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 230 P. 1114 (People v. Warren) 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. Warren, 230 P. 1114, 68 Cal. App. 803, 1924 Cal. App. LEXIS 303 (Cal. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

PLUMMER, J.

It appears from the transcript that the defendant was, prior to the offense upon which he was tried and convicted in this court, lawfully committed to the state prison at Folsom, and during the time for which he had been sentenced, placed at work upon the highways of the state under the surveillance of prison guards, and while - there, under their custody and control, effected his escape, was thereafter captured, and prosecuted for such offense.

All the points made for reversal in this case are identical in substance with the questions raised and decided adversely to the contention of appellant in the following cases: People v. Vanderburg, 67 Cal. App. 217 [227 Pac. 621], People v. French, 61 Cal. App. 275 [214 Pac. 1003], People v. Lewis, 61 Cal. App. 280 [214 Pac. 1005], and People v. Johnson, 67 Cal. App. 680 [228 Pac. 357]. All of these cases and the case at bar show that the defendants were taken from Folsom to different road camps, placed in charge of guards, and Avhile at work upon the highway, effected their escape. Under these circumstances, it was held that the superior court of the county of Sacramento had jurisdiction, and that also all the points raised in this case for reversal are without merit. Upon authority of the cases cited, judgment and orders of the trial court in this case are affirmed.

Hart, J., and Finch, P. J., concurred.

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

PLUMMER, J.

It appears from the transcript that the defendant was, prior to the offense upon which he was tried and convicted in this court, lawfully committed to the state prison at Folsom, and during the time for which he had been sentenced, placed at work upon the highways of the state under the surveillance of prison guards, and while - there, under their custody and control, effected his escape, was thereafter captured, and prosecuted for such offense.

All the points made for reversal in this case are identical in substance with the questions raised and decided adversely to the contention of appellant in the following cases: People v. Vanderburg, 67 Cal. App. 217 [227 Pac. 621], People v. French, 61 Cal. App. 275 [214 Pac. 1003], People v. Lewis, 61 Cal. App. 280 [214 Pac. 1005], and People v. Johnson, 67 Cal. App. 680 [228 Pac. 357]. All of these cases and the case at bar show that the defendants were taken from Folsom to different road camps, placed in charge of guards, and Avhile at work upon the highway, effected their escape. Under these circumstances, it was held that the superior court of the county of Sacramento had jurisdiction, and that also all the points raised in this case for reversal are without merit. Upon authority of the cases cited, judgment and orders of the trial court in this case are affirmed.

Hart, J., and Finch, P. J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

230 P. 1114, 68 Cal. App. 803, 1924 Cal. App. LEXIS 303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-warren-calctapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack