From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bradford v. Glenn

Supreme Court of California
Mar 7, 1922
188 Cal. 350 (Cal. 1922)

Opinion

S. F. No. 10176.

March 7, 1922.

APPLICATION for a Writ of Mandate requiring respondent to proceed to trial of petitioner. Malcolm C. Glenn, Judge. Writ granted.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Clifford A. Russell for Petitioner.


The defendant, Cecil Murray, was in a state prison and was taken out to work, under guard and under authority of the law, on a highway in Trinity County, and there he escaped. He was charged with that escape under the section which makes it an offense. The information was filed in the superior court of Sacramento County, and that court refused to proceed with the case. Section 787 of the Penal Code provides that a charge of escaping from a prison may be tried in any county in the state.

Section 106 of the Penal Code provides that "Every prisoner committed to a state prison for a term less than for life, who escapes or attempts to escape while being conveyed to or from or while confined in such prison or while at work outside such prison under the surveillance of prison guards, is guilty of a felony."

We are of the opinion that a person serving a sentence of imprisonment in a state prison is, in contemplation of law, a prisoner therein, as well when at work outside under the surveillance of prison guards as when confined within its walls, so that if he escapes when outside he escapes from a prison, within the meaning of section 787.

Let the writ of mandate issue as prayed for.


Summaries of

Bradford v. Glenn

Supreme Court of California
Mar 7, 1922
188 Cal. 350 (Cal. 1922)
Case details for

Bradford v. Glenn

Case Details

Full title:HUGH B. BRADFORD, etc., Petitioner, v. MALCOLM C. GLENN, as Judge of the…

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Mar 7, 1922

Citations

188 Cal. 350 (Cal. 1922)
205 P. 449

Citing Cases

People v. Richardson

This section has been held to apply to escapes from road camps as well as to escapes from within prison…

Stewart v. State

" 2 Ore. App. at 156, 465 P.2d at 743. The doctrine of "constructive custody" in the place of confinement to…