What is the effect of delay in the sentencing of a convicted criminal?

Appellant argues that his constitutional rights were violated by delay in his arraignment and that the court lost jurisdiction by extending the time for the pronouncement of sentence beyond the time allowed by law. Appellant was taken into custody on September 25, 1957, but was not arraigned until October 21st. He made no objection in the court below to the timeliness of his arraignment. The statement of the court in People v. Newell, 192 Cal. 659, 669, 221 P. 622, 626, is here apposite: '* * * it does not appear it was claimed in the court below that the appellant was not seasonably arraigned, and this alone is a sufficient answer to the contention.'

Appellant also claims that there was improper delay in his sentencing after conviction. On December 6, 1957, the date

Page 403