People v. Crappa, 238 P. 731 (Cal. Ct. App. 1925). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Crappa, 238 P. 731 (Cal. Ct. App. 1925). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Smith CA2/8 (calctapp, 2021-04-20)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Smith CA2/8
Cal. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
(Christie v. City of El Centro, supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at p. 776 [orders of disqualified judges are void or, according to some authorities, voidable]; People v. Crappa (1925) 73 Cal.App. 260, 261 [where judge was former prosecuting attorney, judgment reversed because section 170 is “too plain to admit of controversy, and the disqualification of the trial judge is clear.”].) B.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) T.P.B. v. Superior Court of Alameda County
Cal. Ct. App. · 1977 · confidence medium
(Blackman v. MacCoy, 169 Cal.App.2d 873, 878-879 [ 338 P.2d 234 , 339 P.2d 169 ]; see People v. Thomas, 8 Cal.3d 518, 520-521 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 366 , 503 P.2d 1374 ]; McKay v. Superior Court, 98 Cal.App.2d 770 [ 220 P.2d 945 ]; In re Harrington, 87 Cal.App.2d 831 [ 197 P.2d 783 ]; People v. Crappa, 73 Cal.App. 260, 261 [ 238 P. 731 ].) There can be no question as to the applicability of this statute to juvenile court proceedings.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Thomas
Cal. · 1972 · confidence medium
In support of the claim that Judge Ritzi was disqualified defendant cites People v. Crappa, 73 Cal.App. 260, 261 [ 238 P. 731 ], There the judge who revoked the defendant’s probation and sentenced him to prison had been the district attorney at the time the information was filed and as such had appeared for the People at the arraignment and at the hearing of defendant’s application for probation, and it was held that the judge was disqualified under the provision in section 170 disqualifying a judge who in the action has been attorney for either party.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The PEOPLE, Respondent,
v.
FRANK CRAPPA, Appellant
Docket No. 864..
California Court of Appeal.
Jun 17, 1925.
238 P. 731
1925 Cal. App. LEXIS 272
Conley, Conley & Conley for Appellant., U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, and J. Charles Jones, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent.
Pinch.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published
PINCH, P. J.

The defendant was charged with the crime of grand larceny, alleged to have been committed on the fourth day of December, 1916. He was arraigned on the ninth day of December, 1916, and entered a plea of ■guilty. December 29, 1916, he was admitted to probation for a term of ten years. April 11, 1925, the order grant[*261] ing probation was revoked and the court entered judgment “that the said Prank Crappa be punished by imprisonment at San Quentin in the State Prison of the State of California, for the term of not less than the minimum and no greater than the maximum time provided by law.” This appeal is from the judgment.

Appellant contends that “the trial judge who revoked the probation of the defendant and imposed sentence was absolutely disqualified to act, since, as district attorney, he had previously represented the plaintiff ... in the same case.” Judge Murray, who revoked the order granting probation and sentenced defendant to imprisonment, was district attorney of Madera County at the time the information was filed. As such district attorney he appeared for the People at the arraignment and at the hearing of defendant’s application for probation. “No justice, judge, or justice of the peace shall sit or act ... in any action or proceeding, . . . when in the action or proceeding, or in any previous action or proceeding involving any of the same issues, he has been attorney or counsel for either party.” (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 170.) This provision is too plain to admit of controversy, and the disqualification of the trial judge is clear.

The crime charged was committed prior to the enactment of the indeterminate sentence law (Penal Code, sec. 1168) and, therefore, the judgment is-void. (People v. Booth, 37 Cal. App. 650 [174 Pac. 685].)

Upon the going down of the remittitur herein, the question of whether the order admitting defendant to probation shall be revoked and, if so, the term of imprisonment to be imposed must be determined by a judge who is not disqualified to act in the matter.

The judgment is reversed.

Thompson, J., pro tern., and Plummer, J., concurred.