Court Opinion

ID: 9855854
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:32:14.338152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:13.529806
License: Public Domain

FOURT, J.
I concur in the judgment, however, I would direct that the defendant be returned to the superior court, and that the trial court be directed to make the finding required by law as to the prior convictions.
The reporter’s transcript discloses the following:
“The Coubt : People vs. John Elton Bullock. You are John Elton Bullock?
“The Dependant : Yes.
“The Coubt: The Court has read and considered the reporter’s transcript of the preliminary examination in this proceeding and has considered People’s Exhibit 7 having to do with the alleged priors against the defendant.
“Mb. Klein : People rest, your Honor.
“Mb. UmanN : And the defendant rests, your Honor. The matter is all contained within the transcript. As to the priors, however, I discussed that with the District Attorney. He has no objection in the event the Court is so disposed to permit them to go over depending upon the decision of the Court.
“The Coubt: Is the matter submitted without argument?
“Me. Klein : Yes, your Honor.
‘ ‘ The Coubt : The Court finds the defendant guilty on each of the five counts of the Information, guilty as charged.
“Mb. Umann : At this time we request the matter of the priors go over and waive time for sentence, and ask for permission to file a written application for probation.
‘ ‘ The Coubt : Permission will be granted. ’ ’
(It was stipulated that the person named in the certified copies of the prison records was the defendant in this ease.)
*499On January 6, 1958, the time set for the hearing of a motion for a new trial, and the time set for considering the probation officer’s report, and for judgment and sentence, the following occurred:
“The Court ; Well, with his past record, which as you say, is going back to 1916, but there is forgery, forgery, escape, checks, swindling, checks, wanted checks, forgery, fugitive, wanted checks. And I would judge at least thirty aliases and names which he has gone under, starting out again under his same old procedure. He doesn’t seem to have learned anything, this being a $2,172.00 check. The probation officer says the defendant was extremely evasive, fretful, frequently changed his replies.
“The Sheriff states that he had checks all over, based on the same fictitious name check-, between the time he was let out on bail another check, seven thirty, dated August 17,1957.
“When I saw that, I was just disgusted. The Court just doesn’t believe that the defendant is in a position to be helped by any leniency.
“No legal cause appearing why judgment should not now be pronounced, it is the judgment and sentence of this Court that the defendant be sentenced to State’s Prison for the term prescribed by law. The defendant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff, to be by him delivered to the Director of Corrections, Chino Institution for Men, Chino, California. Probation is denied.
“The Clerk: No finding as to the priors, Judge?
“Mr. Uhann : In view of the time of the priors, we ask that they be stricken in the interests of justice, your Honor.
“The Court: The Court is deliberately making no finding as to the priors in order to give the Adult Authority greater latitude in the handling of the defendant. (Emphasis added.)
“Mr. Umann : Thank you very much.”
Pending the appeal, bail was then reduced from the sum of $3,000 as set and furnished in the first instance, to $2,000.
The certified copies of the former prison records, which were before the judge, were not questioned. They show on their face that the defendant was convicted of forgery of uttering a forged check in Ohio, and that he was sentenced to the state penitentiary and admitted therein on November 25, 1916, and conditionally released March, 1920, and released on *500parole July 15, 1926, and granted final release from parole in July, 1936.
In Michigan, on November 10, 1920, he was sentenced to the state prison on being convicted of “forgery and uttering” and served a term in that prison therefor. He then apparently escaped from the Michigan state prison, but was sometime later caught and returned.
In Los Angeles County, in 1932, he was convicted of several counts of forgery and issuing cheeks without sufficient funds, and was sentenced therefor to the state prison and served a term in Folsom prison. It is interesting to note that in that series of eases the defendant admitted at least one of the then prior convictions. He was released and discharged from parole in 1938.
It is clear that when the Legislature provided for added penalties in cases where the defendant had suffered one or more prior felony convictions, it had in mind, or believed that if a defendant had not benefited by his prior experience and continually displayed a tendency to commit substantially the same offenses over and over again, he should by his subsequent crime or crimes receive a greater punishment or a longer period of incarceration than would be the case of a first offender. This ease is such an instance. The judge, first of all, failed to make the finding required by section 1158 of the Penal Code, which reads in part as follows:
“Whenever the fact of a previous conviction of another offense is charged in an accusatory pleading, and the defendant is found guilty of the offense with which he is charged, the jury, or the judge, if a jury trial is waived, must unless the answer of the defendant admits such previous convictions, find whether or not he has suffered such previous conviction . . . .” (Emphasis added.)
It is apparent that no finding was made in this particular instance because to do so would have required a finding that the prior convictions were true. Had they been true, and it is obvious that they are, then the defendant would not have been eligible even to apply for probation, let alone have it granted.
As the matter now stands, the defendant is eligible to be treated as a first offender, and as though he had never before committed a public offense, whereas, if the truth had been found, he would be placed in the category where certain *501mínimums must be complied with. (Pen. Code, § 3024, subd. (c).)1
I am convinced that the rise in the crime rate in this state will never be curbed, or even held at its present level, by following the procedures used and adopted in this case. Furthermore, I can see no reason whatsoever for judges failing to do that which the statutes obviously require—namely, as in this case, finding whether the prior convictions were true or untrue. To do otherwise is to fail to dispose of a substantial element in the case.

" The following shall be the minimum term of sentence and imprisonment in certain cases, notwithstanding any other provisions of this code, or any provision of law specifying a lesser sentence:
‘ ‘ (e) For the person previously convicted of a felony either in this State or elsewhere, but not armed with a deadly weapon at the time of his commission of the offense, or a concealed deadly weapon at the time of his arrest, two years; . . . .”