Case Name: THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. JOE RUSSELL, Appellant
Court: District Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1933-05-09
Citations: 131 Cal. App. 646
Docket Number: Crim. No. 1724
Parties: THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. JOE RUSSELL, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports
Volume: 131
Pages: 646–647

Head Matter:
[Crim. No. 1724.
First Appellate District, Division One.
May 9, 1933.]
THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. JOE RUSSELL, Appellant.
Joe Russell, in pro. per., for Appellant.
U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, and Seibert L. Sefton for Respondent.

Opinion:
THE COURT.
Defendant was charged upon three counts with violations of section 288 of the Penal Code and with a prior conviction of a felony in the state of Texas. He was convicted on all the charges with the exception of one of the counts, and has appealed from an order denying his motion for a new trial and the judgment entered on the verdict.
No objection is made to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the charges of violations of the sections of the Penal Code, but it is claimed that section 969b of that code, making certain records evidence of a prior conviction, violates the due process clauses of the state and federal Constitutions.
As shown by the following there is no merit in this contention: 16 Cor. Jur., Criminal Law, secs. 3161, 3162, pp. 1343, 1344; 12 Cor. Jur., Constitutional Law, sec. 879, pp. 1205, 1206; People v. Sierp, 116 Cal. 249, 251 [48 Pac. 88]; West v. Louisiana, 194 U. S. 258 [24 Sup. Ct. 650, 48 L. Ed. 965]; Mobile J. & K. C. R. Co. v. Turnipseed, 219 U. S. 35 [31 Sup. Ct. 136, 55 L. Ed. 78, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 463, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 226]; People v. Sickles, 156 N. Y. 541 [51 N. E. 288],
The judgment and order are affirmed.
A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on May 24, 1933.