California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Atwood, 221 Cal.App.2d 216, 34 Cal.Rptr. 361 (Cal. App. 1963):
We turn briefly to the appellant's final contention that because he was unaware of the grant of probation, he was unable to exercise his right to refuse probation. The record reveals that the appellant was represented by counsel, that the court carefully explained the matter, and that the appellant understood that if he got into any further difficulty, he would be sent to the state penitentiary. While it is clear that a defendant has the right to refuse probation if he feels its terms are more onerous than the sentence imposed (In re Osslo, supra), such refusal must be timely or the probation will be deemed accepted (People v. Billingsley, 59 Cal.App.2d Supp. 845, 850, 139 P.2d 362). Here, the appellant first requested a county jail sentence and then acquiesced and spent a year in the county jail. Having thus accepted the benefits of the bargain incipient with the grant of probation, the appellant cannot now complain. If the appellant had not become embroiled with the law in violation of his bargain, he would still be enjoying the clemency received (In re Hays, supra).
Order revoking probation is hereby affirmed.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.