From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Application of Booth

Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division One
Dec 9, 1919
44 Cal.App. 660 (Cal. Ct. App. 1919)

Opinion

Crim. No. 882.

December 9, 1919.

APPLICATION for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Denied.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Ernest G. Booth, in pro. per., for Petitioner.


This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner, who is confined in the California state prison at San Quentin, was sentenced by the superior court, in and for the county of Butte, on September 24, 1917, "for the indeterminate term of one to fourteen years," after having entered a plea of guilty to the crime of forgery, committed on the eighteenth day of June, 1917, before the indeterminate sentence law of this state went into effect. Thereafter, and pursuant to the personal request of the petitioner, the court made an order for his return into court, to the end that a legal judgment might be pronounced and entered in the case, following the procedure laid down in In the Matter of the Application of Charles Lee for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, 177 Cal. 690, [ 171 P. 958]. The defendant was, on the twenty-second day of March, sentenced to serve a term of five years in the state penitentiary at San Quentin. The defendant thereupon in open court gave notice of, and thereafter perfected, an appeal from the judgment. [1] The precise questions, presented by this petition, were considered by the district court of appeal for the third appellate district and were decided adversely to the appellant. ( People v. Booth, 37 Cal.App. 650, [ 174 P. 685].)

The petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is, therefore, denied.


Summaries of

In re Application of Booth

Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division One
Dec 9, 1919
44 Cal.App. 660 (Cal. Ct. App. 1919)
Case details for

In re Application of Booth

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Application of ERNEST G. BOOTH for a Writ of Habeas…

Court:Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division One

Date published: Dec 9, 1919

Citations

44 Cal.App. 660 (Cal. Ct. App. 1919)
186 P. 841

Citing Cases

In re Passerello

[1] Though the latter case has established a rule in this state contrary to the rule approved by the district…

In re Martinez

Because of this, respondent now contends that the present proceeding constitutes a collateral attack on the…