TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Fields

The PEOPLE, Respondent, v. MAX FIELDS, Appellant

People v. Fields, 20 P.2d 988 (Cal. Ct. App. 1933)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Court of Appeal · State Appellate Courts
Decided
April 6, 1933
Docket
No. 2356.
Judges
Stephens
Citations
20 P.2d 988131 Cal. App. 561933 Cal. App. LEXIS 799

Opinion of the Court — Stephens

STEPHENS, J.

The appellant had pleaded guilty to the offense of possession of a still, a felony, had been granted probation, was given a hearing after appearing on a bench warrant and his probation was revoked. He was thereupon *57 duly adjudged guilty and sentenced. His appeal here is upon the points that in revoking the probation the court acted arbitrarily and in excess of and contrary to accepted principles of judicial discretion, and that the facts elicited at the hearing were insufficient.

The facts are not with appellant. The court inquired exhaustively into whether or not the probationer had been frequenting gambling places and as to whether or not he had driven a man to San Francisco under very suspicious circumstances. The man had been shot in the leg and was under police suspicion of having been involved in a murder.

The best that can be said of the evidence so far as appellant, is concerned is that it was conflicting. Under section 1203 of the Penal Code the discretion of the court to revoke an order of probation is very broad. The hearing therein provided for is not required to be had under the fixed rules of a trial for an offense committed. The probationer stands before the court guilty of having committed an offense against the state. He has been granted an extraordinary relief from suffering the penalty of his offense because the court believed he would remold himself into a good citizen.

The court having revoked the order of probation upon evidence that could reasonably be taken as showing the probationer unworthy of the relief that had been granted him, as was done in this case, such order will not be disturbed upon appeal.

The judgment is affirmed.

Craig, Acting P. J., and Archbald, J., pro tom., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 13 cases

View all citing references →
1936: 11939: 11940: 11943: 11950: 11951: 11953: 11958: 11960: 11963: 11968: 11969: 11978: 119362026peak 1936 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Warner574 P.2d 1237 (Cal. 1978)
  2. People v. Martin137 P.2d 468 (Cal. Ct. App. 1943)
  3. People v. Walker215 Cal. App. 2d 609 (1963)
  4. In re Davis236 P.2d 579 (Cal. 1951)
  5. Ex Parte Medley253 P.2d 794 (Idaho 1953)
  6. People v. Blankenship61 P.2d 352 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936)

Most recent

  1. People v. Warner574 P.2d 1237 (Cal. 1978)
  2. People v. Matranga275 Cal. App. 2d 328 (1969)
  3. People v. Jones263 Cal. App. 2d 818 (1968)
  4. People v. Walker215 Cal. App. 2d 609 (1963)
  5. People v. Mason184 Cal. App. 2d 182 (1960)
  6. State v. Moretti141 A.2d 810 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1958)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list