Brattingham

People v. Brattingham

Good Law
1928 Cal. App. LEXIS 966·91 Cal. App. 527·267 P. 120
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 2, 1928Docket No. 1584.California489 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Craig, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion of the defendant for modification of the judgment heretofore made and entered. The judgment in question is one after verdict of guilty of the charge contained in the information accusing the defendant of a violation of section 141 of the California Motor Vehicle Act (Stats. 1923, p. 562). The judgment was:

This was done on July 29, 1927, and the defendant was at once remanded to the custody of the sheriff. On October 1, 1927, the defendant served notice that on October 7, 1927, he would move the superior court to modify the judgment by striking therefrom the following:

It is claimed that the court was without jurisdiction to pronounce that part of the sentence sought to be stricken out. The motion was denied, and the defendant appeals. The People have moved to dismiss the appeal.

Appellant contends that an appeal is authorized by subdivision 3 of section 1237 of the Penal Code, which provides that an appeal may be taken from an order after judgment affecting the substantial rights of the defendant. It is also said that the court has inherent power at any time to vacate a void judgment. Generally this is true, but the rule is well…

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.