From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Glancy

Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Two
Jul 18, 1934
139 Cal.App. 766 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934)

Opinion

Docket No. 2576.

July 18, 1934.

PROCEEDING in Habeas Corpus to secure release from custody after judgment of conviction of disturbing the peace. Writ discharged; prisoner remanded.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Alexander L. Oster for Petitioner.

Buron Fitts, District Attorney, and A.H. Van Cott, Deputy District Attorney, for Respondent.


[1] Luther Glancy was convicted in a justice's court of disturbing the peace and sentenced to the county jail for six months. While confined therein, and before the expiration of ninety days, the maximum legal imprisonment for such offense, he petitions, through his attorney, in habeas corpus to be released on the ground that the judgment is void. But the judgment is not void and habeas corpus will not assist him until the legal time has been served. ( In re Morck, 180 Cal. 384 [ 181 P. 657]; In re Rosencrantz, 205 Cal. 534 [ 271 P. 902], and Id., 211 Cal. 749 [ 297 P. 15].) Counsel for petitioner argues that the cited cases arose from judgments under the indeterminate sentence law. He also argues that no intendments arise from judgments of justice courts. We think these points make no difference in the problem.

[2] The written direction of the justice to the sheriff states that Glancy is to be confined in the county jail until the fine named in the judgment is paid. Since no fine is mentioned in the judgment, this may be regarded as a nullity.

Writ discharged and the prisoner remanded.

Craig, J., and Desmond, J., concurred.


Summaries of

In re Glancy

Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Two
Jul 18, 1934
139 Cal.App. 766 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934)
Case details for

In re Glancy

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Application of LUTHER GLANCY for a Writ of Habeas…

Court:Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Two

Date published: Jul 18, 1934

Citations

139 Cal.App. 766 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934)
34 P.2d 834

Citing Cases

In re Goetz

Further, the petitioner is not in a position to complain of an excessive penalty. In In re Glancy, 139…

Ex Parte Chapman

In support of his argument regarding the claimed prevailing practice in this state, respondent relies…