Court Opinion

ID: 9612427
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:08:33.444291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:41:42.241493
License: Public Domain

SPENCE, J., pro tem., Concurred.
I concur, as there was clearly a final judgment of conviction in the present ease upon which the order of disbarment was based. I believe, however, that it is proper to call to the attention of the legislature the anomalous situation presented by our statutes relating to probation.
When a court decides to grant probation either upon application of the defendant or upon its own motion (Pen. Code, sec. 1203), it may suspend the imposition of sentence or it may impose sentence and suspend the execution thereof. (Pen. Code, sec. 1203.1.) Either procedure is based upon the record of conviction and the order or judgment of the court in either case is in the nature of a judgment of con*64viction, which may provide, in the discretion of the court and as a condition of probation, for fine or imprisonment or both. (Pen. Code, sec. 1203.1.) It seems well settled, however, that where a defendant is ordered on probation by suspending the imposition of sentence, no appeal lies in the absence of a statute expressly authorizing such an appeal; but on the other hand, where a defendant is ordered on probation by imposing sentence and suspending the execution thereof, an appeal does lie. (People v. Gibbons, 39 Cal. App. (2d) 671, 673 [103 Pac. (2d) 1005]; People v. Dawes, 37 Cal. App. (2d) 44, 46 [98 Pac. (2d) 787]; People v. Smith, 36 Cal. App. (2d) 361, 362 [97 Pac. (2d) 867]; People v. Johnson, 14 Cal. App. (2d) 373, 375 [58 Pac. (2d) 211]; People v. Brooks, 140 Cal. App. 480, 481 [35 Pac. (2d) 583]; People v. Von Eckartsberg, 133 Cal. App. 1, 3 [23 Pac. (2d) 819]; People v. Neel, 133 Cal. App. 332, 333 [24 Pac. (2d) 230]; People v. Noone, 132 Cal. App. 89, 92 [22 Pac. (2d) 284]; People v. Bentson, 132 Cal. App. 295, 298 [22 Pac. (2d) 734]; People v. Patello, 125 Cal. App. 480, 487 [13 Pac. (2d) 1068]; People v. De Voe, 123 Cal. App. 233, 237 [11 Pac. (2d) 26]; In re De Voe, 114 Cal. App. 730 [300 Pac. 874]; People v. Hartman, 23 Cal. App. 72, 75 [137 Pac. 611]; see, also, 126 A. L. R. 1210; 117 A. L. R. 929.) While there appears to be justification for holding that the right of appeal exists in the one case and not in the other, it would seem that the legislature might well consider the desirability of according to the defendant a right of appeal in either case.
An application for probation is directed to the matter of punishment and not to the matter of guilt. If there is a serious question regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to establish the guilt of the. defendant or a serious question regarding the fairness of the trial in which he was found guilty, it would seem appropriate that a defendant should not be deprived of his right of appeal by applying for probation and by the granting thereof without the imposition of sentence. It appears that trial courts ordinarily have no occasion to consider the distinction between the two procedures permitted in granting probation and that it might be deemed good policy by the legislature to provide by statute that any order placing a defendant upon probation under either procedure should be deemed a “judgment of convic*65tion” for the purposes of appeal and for the purposes of section 6102 of the Business and Professions Code.