Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

87 Cal. 122

People v. Perez

California Supreme Court

Decided December 15, 1890

California Supreme Court · decided 1890-12-15

The information accused the defendant of the crime of grand larceny in feloniously stealing, taking, and carrying away certain articles specifically described, stating the value of each, which amounted in the aggregate to $630; “also, various other articles, of the value of eight hundred and ninety dollars in lawful money of the United States,”— all described as the personal property of one Martha Cooper.

Applies CA PEN § 1200

Relies on People v. Price · People v. Whitely

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1890-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently May 1959

5 state decisions

201890190019101920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Fox, J.

¶11. The demurrer to the information was properly overruled. All that part of it to which exception is taken may be stricken out, and it still remains a good information under the statute. The presence of the language excepted to does not prejudice the defendant, or affect the validity of the information.

¶22. The information is for grand larceny, and a verdict of “guilty as charged ” is a conviction of grand larceny. (People v. Whitely, 64 Cal. 211; People v. Price, 67 Cal. 350.)

¶33. The judgment roll showrs a full compliance with the requirements of section 1200 of the Penal Code at the time of the arraignment for judgment.

¶44. The information was for and the conviction was of grand larceny committed in the city and county of San Francisco. The judgment of the court was, that for the crime of which he was so "charged, and for which he had been so convicted, it is “ ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the said Antonio Perez be punished by imprisonment in the state prison of the state of California at San Quentin for the term of nine (9) years.” This was sufficient under the statute. Judgment affirmed.

¶5Sharpstein, J., McFarland, J., Paterson, J., and Thornton, J., concurred.

/87/cal/122 · .json · Public domain