gno.law

People v. London

California Court of Appeal · Crim. 3138 · 1938-09-08 · Published · 28 Cal. App. 2d 395 · 82 P.2d 619 · 1938 Cal. App. LEXIS 547

The PEOPLE, Respondent, v. JACK C. LONDON, Appellant

Area
criminal
Panel
Crail (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion — Crail

CRAIL, P. J.

This is an appeal from an order after judgment revoking a previous order suspending the execution of sentence of the defendant and placing him on probation after conviction of a violation of section 288 and section 288a of the Penal Code.

In summing up the case the court stated: “It is probably true that', if we were trying the issues involved in this violation on a charge of a new crime, there might be some reasonable doubt as to whether the evidence was sufficient to warrant a conviction. ’ ’

It is the contention of the appellant that, “if there was a reasonable doubt as to whether the evidence was sufficient to warrant a conviction, then there certainly was a reasonable doubt to warrant the court in giving the defendant that benefit before ordering him into a violation. ’’

At the hearing for the revocation of the order granting his probation it was not necessary that he be proved guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. We have read the evidence. It shows clearly and satisfactorily that the defendant violated the terms of his probation.

(People v. Lippner, 219 Cal. 395, 400 [26 Pac. (2d) 457].) The court did not abuse its discretion.

Order affirmed.

Wood, J., and McComb, J., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by