Arguello

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of forgery.

Facts: August 13, 1956, defendant entered a plea of guilty to forgery (violation of Pen. Code, § 470) and filed an appliea *476 tion for probation. August 28, 1956, the date set for judgment and/or probation hearing, defendant appeared with his attorney and was ordered to serve six months in the county jail, with the last three months suspended during three years of probation. 1

April 13, 1962, defendant appeared with counsel before the trial court on a probation hearing, after which the court made an order revoking defendant’s probation and arraigned him for judgment on the original charge to which he had pleaded guilty in 1956. Thereafter the court rendered judgment and sentenced defendant to confinement in the state prison for the term prescribed by law (one to fourteen years), with a recommendation that he serve more than the minimum sentence.

Defendant contends that the action taken by the trial court on August 28, 1956, constituted rendition of a final judgment of conviction and the imposition of sentence therefor, and that the court had no jurisdiction to render judgment and pronounce sentence against him on…

I am unable to concur in the judgment of reversal. The real issue on this appeal, as I understand it, is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial coxirt’s judgment. Resolution of this issue depends upon how we view the record. In construing the record the rule is so fundamental that it would not — except for its seeming breach here — need reiteration. Essentially it is that “We cannot presume error unless it is clearly disclosed” (Thompson v. Monrow (1852) 2 Cal. 99, 100 [ 56 Am. Dec. 318 ]); that “Error . . . must be affirmatively shown, and [that] all intendments are in favor of the regularity of the judgment below.” (Ford v. Holton (1855) 5 Cal. 319, 321 ; People v. McClennegen (1925) 195 Cal. 445, 449 [1] [ 234 P. 91 ]; Lynch v. Birdwell (1955) 44 Cal.2d 839, 846 [2,3] [ 28 P.2d 919 ]; Primm v. Prirnm (1956) 46 Cal.2d 690, 693-694 [1,2] [ 299 P.2d 231 ].) Applying the rule, the duty is upon this court to construe the elements and several documents of the record before us favorable to affirming the judgment. Obedient to that rule, and as illustrative of the evidence which I consider ample to support the trial court, I set forth certain references to and excerpts…