Court Opinion

ID: 9856097
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:38:05.779701+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:26:01.848012
License: Public Domain

MOORE, P. J.
I concur. Defendant was not denied any constitutional right. He was at all stages of the action represented by counsel. After four continuances when the cause came on for trial defendant himself and his attorney stipulated that a second count might be added. He knew then that he had not been committed on the charge of having violated the Dangerous Weapons Control Law and his counsel knew that, if the pleading should over his objection be amended as proposed, he could obtain its elimination by virtue of section 995 of the Penal Code. Also, he knew that by section 996 if he did not ask it to be set aside, defendant would be precluded from afterwards making the objection mentioned in section 995. Despite such knowledge and the law as thus codified, defendant now seeks to be relieved from his plea of “guilty” to the accusation thus added by amendment to the information. He is in no better position than the accused in People v. Sierra, cited by Justice McComb, whose appeal on the very same point was denied.
*537All points in opposition to the demands of the prosecution should be interposed in the trial court where the trial judge may make such reviewable orders as may be deemed appropriate.
Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied December 23, 1953. Carter, J., and Sehauer, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.