In Re Stanley
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Craig, J.
The petitioner herein, together with two others, was charged by information with having committed grand theft in the county of Los Angeles in that they “did unlawfully take away a certain Chevrolet automobile,” and by a second count of said information they were charged with having violated section 146 of the California Vehicle Act (Stats. 1923, p. 564), it being alleged therein that they “did wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously drive a certain motor-vehicle, to wit, a Chevrolet automobile, which was then and there the personal property of one E. R. Plummer, in the absence and without the consent of said owner, E. R. Plummer, and with intent then and there to deprive the said E. R. Plummer of his title to, and possession of, said motor vehicle." All three of the defendants pleaded not guilty, and as to petitioner the jury returned verdicts of guilty of receiving stolen property, and not guilty of either grand theft or violation of section 146 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Thereafter sentence was imposed upon the verdict rendered.
On February 14, 1928, Stanley appealed, asserting, among other grounds for reversal, that the court had no jurisdiction to render the judgment. On…