From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Zeigler v. Superior Court

Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division One
Aug 30, 1933
134 Cal.App. 88 (Cal. Ct. App. 1933)

Opinion

Docket No. 9243.

August 30, 1933.

APPLICATION for a Writ of Mandate to compel the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco to hear and determine a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Application denied.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

George Zeigler, in pro. per., for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.


Petitioner, a prisoner in the state prison at Folsom, has made application in propria persona to this court for a writ of mandate to compel the Superior Court in and for the City and County of San Francisco to hear and determine a petition for a writ of habeas corpus which he claims was heretofore filed by him in said court. [1] It appears from the present application, however, that at the time petitioner claims to have instituted said habeas corpus proceeding in the city and county of San Francisco he was imprisoned in the state prison at Folsom, Sacramento County; and the Constitution provides that superior courts have jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus on behalf of any person in actual custody, "in their respective counties". (Art. VI, sec. 5, Const.) It is evident, therefore, that there was no legal duty imposed upon the Superior Court in and for the City and County of San Francisco to entertain said proceeding; and upon that ground the application for a writ of mandate is denied.

Tyler, P.J., and Cashin, J., concurred.


Summaries of

Zeigler v. Superior Court

Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division One
Aug 30, 1933
134 Cal.App. 88 (Cal. Ct. App. 1933)
Case details for

Zeigler v. Superior Court

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE ZEIGLER, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF…

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

Date published: Aug 30, 1933

Citations

134 Cal.App. 88 (Cal. Ct. App. 1933)
24 P.2d 899

Citing Cases

People v. Dunlop

[8] Also, appellants are residents of Sacramento County to whose superior court they as prisoners of the…

In re Haro

The sentencing court, rather than the court of the county of confinement, normally is more familiar with the…