People v. Perini
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtPaterson, J.
The defendants were convicted of the crime of receiving stolen goods, knowing the same to have been stolen, and were sentenced to serve a term of sixty days in the county jail.
It is claimed that section 496 of the Penal Code, under which the defendants were prosecuted and convicted, is unconstitutional, because it provides for punishment “ by imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding five years, or in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by both.”
We are unable to appreciate the force of the argument that this section authorizes a double punishment, and know of no provision of the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- People v. RibolsiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- People v. BurrNew York Court of Sessions · 1871
3Cited by11 opinions
- People v. MacIelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
- Sawyer v. BarbourCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
- State v. RogersIdaho Supreme Court · 1917
- In Re O'SheaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1909
- People v. DreyerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.