PEOPLE v. HOUSTON (1937)

District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, California.

PEOPLE v. HOUSTON.

Cr. 352.

Decided: December 22, 1937

Joseph Seymour, of Riverside, for appellant. U. S. Webb, Atty. Gen., and John O. Palstine, Deputy Atty. Gen., for the People.

This is a companion case to People v. Houston, 74 P.2d 515, the opinion in which has this day been filed. After defendant had been found guilty in that case the district attorney of Riverside county presented and filed a supplemental information charging him with two prior convictions. He was found guilty and sentenced as an habitual criminal who had suffered two prior convictions.

Defendant has appealed from the judgment sentencing him as an habitual criminal, and from the orders denying his motion for new trial, and in arrest of judgment. The latter order is not appealable.

The Attorney General has confessed error and admits that since the amendment of section 969a of the Penal Code, St.1931, p. 1060, the procedure followed here cannot be supported.

The judgment adjudging defendant an habitual criminal and the order denying the motion for new trial are reversed. The appeal from the order denying the motion for arrest of judgment is dismissed.

MARKS, Justice.

We concur: BARNARD, P. J.; JENNINGS, J.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network