Rankin

Rankin v. Superior Court of S.F.

Good Law
157 Cal. 189·1910 Cal. LEXIS 247·106 P. 718
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJanuary 6, 1910S.F. No. 5449.California882 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

The petitioner was convicted of grand larceny in the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco by a verdict returned on September 10, 1909. Judgment has not yet been pronounced on the verdict and the superior court has set the seventh day of January, 1910, as the time for passing sentence. The petitioner, claiming that by this delay the court has. lost jurisdiction to give judgment, asks for a writ of prohibition to restrain the superior court from pronouncing judgment, or further proceeding in the case.

Section 1191 of the Penal Code, as amended in 1909, [Stats. 1909, p. 898], provides that the court must pronounce judgment within not less than two nor more than five days after the verdict or plea of guilty; but that, for the purpose of hearing and determining a motion for a new trial, or in arrest of judgment, this time may be extended not more than ten days, that it may extend the time not more than twenty days to consider the question of probation under section 1203, and that if the question of defendant’s present insanity is raised, under sections 1367 to 1373, the court may further extend the time-until his sanity is determined. No question of his sanity…

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.