From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ex parte Ah Sam

Supreme Court of California
Apr 30, 1890
83 Cal. 620 (Cal. 1890)

Opinion

         Application to the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus.

         COUNSEL:

         L. L. Chamberlain, for Petitioner.


         JUDGES: In Bank.

         OPINION

         THE COURT          Petition for writ of habeas corpus .

         The alleged illegality of the imprisonment in this case is, that the petitioner is held under a commitment issued upon a conviction of the crime of battery, and that the commitment is void, because it does not appear therefrom that the petitioner was informed of all his rights, or that six hours elapsed after conviction and before sentence, or that time was waived.

         There is no law that makes it necessary that these facts should be recited in the judgment or copied into the commitment.

         Beside, if it is true that the defendant was not duly informed of his rights, or was sentenced too soon after conviction, these were mere errors, -- not excesses of jurisdiction, -- and were reviewable on appeal. They cannot be inquired into on habeas corpus .

         Writ denied.


Summaries of

Ex parte Ah Sam

Supreme Court of California
Apr 30, 1890
83 Cal. 620 (Cal. 1890)
Case details for

Ex parte Ah Sam

Case Details

Full title:Ex parte AH SAM, on Habeas Corpus

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Apr 30, 1890

Citations

83 Cal. 620 (Cal. 1890)
24 P. 276

Citing Cases

In re Connor

Refusing to grant relief, the court said: "The proper method of presenting this objection is by appeal from…

In re Gutierrez

The proper method of presenting this objection is by appeal from the judgment. ( Ex parte Ah Sam, 83 Cal. 620…