From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ex parte McConnell

Supreme Court of California
Apr 11, 1890
83 Cal. 558 (Cal. 1890)

Summary

In People v. Woods, 84 Cal. 441, 23 P. 1119 (1890), the trial court allowed a defendant after her conviction for grand larceny to withdraw her plea of not guilty to the indictment and enter a plea of guilty to petit larceny.

Summary of this case from State v. Nardone

Opinion

         Application for a writ of habeas corpus.

         COUNSEL:

         Hugh J. & William Crawford, for Petitioner.


         JUDGES: In Bank. Beatty, C. J. Fox, J., Works, J., Paterson, J., Sharpstein, J., and McFarland, J., concurred.

         OPINION

          BEATTY, Judge

         The petitioner, who has been tried and convicted upon an information charging him with the crime of burglary, seeks to be discharged from imprisonment in the state prison, under said conviction, upon the ground that he was not examined or held to answer by a magistrate prior to the filing of the information.

         It is too late, after conviction, to raise this objection in a proceeding upon habeas corpus .

         It should have been taken by motion to set aside the information before trial. (Pen. Code, sec. 995.)

         The filing of the information gave the court jurisdiction to proceed in the case, and the section of the code cited provides the exclusive method of trying the question whether the information was founded on the necessary preliminary examination and commitment.

         No objection to the information having been made at the proper time, the superior court properly proceeded with the trial. Its judgment is regular and valid, and the imprisonment of the petitioner is lawful.

         Writ discharged, and prisoner remanded.


Summaries of

Ex parte McConnell

Supreme Court of California
Apr 11, 1890
83 Cal. 558 (Cal. 1890)

In People v. Woods, 84 Cal. 441, 23 P. 1119 (1890), the trial court allowed a defendant after her conviction for grand larceny to withdraw her plea of not guilty to the indictment and enter a plea of guilty to petit larceny.

Summary of this case from State v. Nardone

In Ex parte McConnell, 83 Cal. 558, [23 P. 1119], where, on habeas corpus, after conviction, a defendant raised the question that he had never been examined and held to answer before the filing of the information, the supreme court, by the late Chief Justice Beatty, pointed out that this question should have been seasonably raised by a motion to set aside the information under section 995 of the Penal Code.

Summary of this case from People v. Ronsse
Case details for

Ex parte McConnell

Case Details

Full title:Ex parte A. W. McCONNELL, on Habeas Corpus

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Apr 11, 1890

Citations

83 Cal. 558 (Cal. 1890)
23 P. 1119

Citing Cases

In re Berry

The filing of the information gave the superior court jurisdiction to proceed in the matter. ( Ex…

People v. Superior Court

portion of the opinion. Although RPI cites authorities for the proposition that an absence of jurisdiction is…