Madrigal

People v. Madrigal

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 766·37 Cal. App. 4th 791·43 Cal. Rptr. 2d 498·43 Cal. Rptr. 498·95 Daily Journal DAR 10127
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 27, 1995B085069California1,675 words

Opinion

Opinion

Grignon, J.

Defendant and appellant Manuel Ranjel Madrigal appeals from a judgment following revocation of his probation. We conclude the trial judge acted in excess of his jurisdiction when he revoked defendant’s probation, after defendant’s probation violation matter had been duly assigned to another judge in accordance with local court rules. We reverse.

Facts and Procedural Background

On August 3, 1993, defendant was charged by information in the instant case, No. TA025194, with receiving stolen property in violation of Penal Code section 496. On August 20, 1993, defendant pleaded no contest in the South Central District of the Los Angeles Superior Court (Compton) before Judge John J. Cheroske. Judge Cheroske suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on three years’ probation on condition defendant spend two hundred seventy days in jail (Compton case).

On December 9, 1993, defendant was charged by information in case No. VA026207 (People v. Madrigal (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 1993)) with attempted second degree burglary in violation of sections 664 and 459. On December 23, 1993, defendant pleaded guilty in the Southeast District of the Los Angeles Superior Court…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.