Case ID: cal_87/html/0122-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Fox, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 20713.
    In Bank.
    December 15, 1890.]
    THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. ANTONIO PEREZ, Appellant.
    Criminal Law — Information —■ Demurrer. — A demurrer to an information is properly overruled when it would remain sufficient under the statute if the part excepted to should be stricken out.
    Id. — Grand Larceny — Verdict. —Upon an information for grand larceny, a verdict of “ guilty as charged ” is a conviction of grand larceny.
    Id. —■ Arraignment for Judgment—Judgment—Punishment for Grand Larceny. —Where the judgment roll shows a full compliance with tne requirements of section 1200 of the Penal Code at the time of arraignment for judgment, and the judgment, upon conviction for grand larceny committed in the city and county of San Francisco, is, that the defendant be punished for the crime of which he was charged and convicted, by imprisonment in the state prison of the state of California at San Quentin for the term of nine years, the judgment is sufficient under the statute.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city aud county of San Francisco.
    The information accused the defendant of the crime of grand larceny in feloniously stealing, taking, and carrying away certain articles specifically described, stating the value of each, which amounted in the aggregate to $630; “also, various other articles, of the value of eight hundred and ninety dollars in lawful money of the United States,”— all described as the personal property of one Martha Cooper. The defendant demurred to the information, and objected that the portion above quoted stated no offense, and did not conform to the requirements of sections 950, 951, and 952 of the Penal Code. The record of the sentence is as follows: “This being the day set for sentence, the defendant and counsel being asked if he had any legal cause to show why judgment should not be pronounced against him. To which defendant moves for a new trial. Motion denied. Defendant excepts. Thereupon the court renders its judgment: That whereas the said Antonio Perez having "been duly convicted of the crime of grand larceny, it is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the said Antonio Perez be punished by imprisonment in the state prison at San Quentin for the term of nine (9) years.”
    
      Carroll Cook, and J. E. Foulds, for Appellant.
    
      Attorney-General Johnson, for Respondent.
   Fox, J.

1. The demurrer to the information was properly overruled. All that part of it to which exception is taken may be stricken out, and it still remains a good information under the statute. The presence of the language excepted to does not prejudice the defendant, or affect the validity of the information.

2. The information is for grand larceny, and a verdict of “guilty as charged ” is a conviction of grand larceny. (People v. Whitely, 64 Cal. 211; People v. Price, 67 Cal. 350.)

3. The judgment roll showrs a full compliance with the requirements of section 1200 of the Penal Code at the time of the arraignment for judgment.

4. The information was for and the conviction was of grand larceny committed in the city and county of San Francisco. The judgment of the court was, that for the crime of which he was so "charged, and for which he had been so convicted, it is “ ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the said Antonio Perez be punished by imprisonment in the state prison of the state of California at San Quentin for the term of nine (9) years.” This was sufficient under the statute. Judgment affirmed.

Sharpstein, J., McFarland, J., Paterson, J., and Thornton, J., concurred.