Opinion
Docket No. Crim. 3974.
June 18, 1936.
PROCEEDING in Habeas Corpus to secure release from custody after conviction of violation of a municipal ordinance. Petitioner discharged.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
John L. McNab and Leo A. Sullivan for Petitioner.
F. Bert Fernhoff, City Attorney (Oakland), and John W. Collier, Assistant City Attorney, for Respondent.
THE COURT.
[1] In this case, as in the case of In re Mark, Crim. No. 3973 ( ante, p. 516 [ 58 P.2d 913]), this day decided, a writ of habeas corpus was issued for the purpose of considering the validity of the arrest and conviction of the petitioner for a violation of section 5-8.22 of the same ordinance of the city of Oakland which was involved in the Mark case. Inasmuch as each case depended upon identical questions of fact and law, the disposition of the matter in the Mark case is controlling here.
It is therefore ordered that the petitioner be discharged from custody.