Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta People v. Garcia 196 Cal. 784

← Cases

People v. Garcia

196 Cal. 784 Court Cal. Decision date 1925-07-15 Docket Crim. No. 2777 English

Delivered by LAWLOR, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 784
[Crim. No. 2777.
In Bank.
July 15, 1925.]
THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. M. GARCIA, Appellant.

Headnote

[1] Criminal Law—'Concealed Weapon—Possession by Boreign-bobn and Unnaturalized Person.—Judgment and order denying new trial reversed upon the authority of People v. Quarez, ante, p. 404.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County and from an order denying a new trial. John F. Pullen, Judge.
Reversed.
The questions involved are the same as those in the case of People v. Quarez, ante, p. 404.
Price & Price for Appellant.
U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, Robert W. Harrison, Chief Deputy Attorney-General, and J. Charles Jones, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent.

The vdefendant, following his arrest with one D. Quarez, was charged by information, filed by the district attorney of Sacramento County, with having, on the twelfth day of July, 1924, “in his possession, under his custody and control” a .38 Colt’s revolver, less than twelve inches in length and capable of being concealed upon the person, and being a foreign-born person and not a naturalized citizen of the United States. He was tried and convicted of the charge—the alleged offense constituting a violation of the act of 1923 (Stats. 1923, e. 339, p. 695)—a motion for a new trial was interposed and denied, whereupon defendant was sentenced to the penitentiary. He has appealed from the order denying his motion for a new trial and from the judgment of conviction.

[1] The same points are urged for a reversal of the judgment and order as in the case of People v. Quarez, this day decided by this court (ante, p. 404 [ 238 Pac. 363 ]). A weapon of the prohibited type was also found in the pos

p. 785
session of appellant herein. What we have said touching the questions presented in the Quarez case is hereby adopted and made a part hereof. For the reasons therein stated the judgment and order appealed from are hereby reversed and a new trial, ordered.

Lennon, J., Richards, J., Shenk, J., Waste, J., Seawell, J., and Myers, C. J., concurred.

Rehearing denied.