Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jerry Robert LEON, Defendant and Appellant.
This is an appeal from a judgment following conviction of the crime of issuing a fictitious check. Appellant, who was represented by counsel of his own choosing, initially entered a plea of not guilty to the substantive charge, but admitted a prior conviction of a felony. Later, by leave of court, he withdraw his plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty. Application for probation was denied and appellant was sentenced.
In support of his appeal appellant contends that he was coerced by the district attorney and the Sacramento police into pleading guilty; that he was tricked into pleading guilty since he believed he was pleading only to the charge of prior conviction; that he was inadequately represented by his attorney; that the evidence introduced against him at the preliminary examination was insufficient to support the information and that the prosecution withheld evidence favorable to him during the preliminary hearing before the magistrate.
All of appellant's contentions concern matters which do not appear in the record on appeal. They, therefor, cannot here be considered. People v. Levine, 114 Cal.App.2d 616, 617, 250 P.2d 645; People v. Graff, 104 Cal.App.2d 32, 34, 230 P.2d 654.
Appellant also asserts that the evidence introduced at the preliminary examination was insufficient to support the information. No motion was made to dismiss the information and, therefore, these contentions cannot be raised or considered on appeal. Penal Code, Sec. 996; In re Berry, 43 Cal.2d 838, 844, 279 P.2d 18.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
VAN DYKE, Presiding Justice.
SCHOTTKY, J., and WARNE, J. pro. tem., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Docket No: Cr. 2743.
Decided: June 21, 1957
Court: District Court of Appeal, Third District, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)