Ex Parte Heath

California Supreme Court

Ex Parte Heath

223 P. 546, 193 Cal. 192, 1924 Cal. LEXIS 297

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 11, 1924

DocketCrim. No. 2661.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 223 P. 546 (Ex Parte Heath) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ex Parte Heath, 223 P. 546, 193 Cal. 192, 1924 Cal. LEXIS 297 (Cal. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

Petitioner is detained in the California state prison at Folsom and seeks a writ of habeas corpus.

The judgment under which he is imprisoned sentenced petitioner to be confined in the California state prison according to law. The petitioner was convicted of the crime of robbery after a prior conviction of a felony. (In re Heath, 49 Cal. App. 657 [194 Pac. 68].) The punishment fixed by law is life imprisonment. (In re Heath, supra; secs. 213 and 667, Pen. Code.) The petitioner contends that inasmuch as the indeterminate sentence law does not apply (In re Heath, supra), that it was the duty of the trial court, under section 12 of the Penal Code, to have fixed the term of imprisonment. Section 13 provides that the sentence shall be fixed by the court “whenever in this code the punishment for a crime is left undetermined between certain limits.’’ In the' case at bar, in view of the fact that the only sentence possible was one for life imprisonment, the sentence and judgment were sufficiently specific. (In re Heath, supra.)

The petition is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE COURT.

Petitioner is detained in the California state prison at Folsom and seeks a writ of habeas corpus.

The judgment under which he is imprisoned sentenced petitioner to be confined in the California state prison according to law. The petitioner was convicted of the crime of robbery after a prior conviction of a felony. (In re Heath, 49 Cal. App. 657 [194 Pac. 68].) The punishment fixed by law is life imprisonment. (In re Heath, supra; secs. 213 and 667, Pen. Code.) The petitioner contends that inasmuch as the indeterminate sentence law does not apply (In re Heath, supra), that it was the duty of the trial court, under section 12 of the Penal Code, to have fixed the term of imprisonment. Section 13 provides that the sentence shall be fixed by the court “whenever in this code the punishment for a crime is left undetermined between certain limits.’’ In the' case at bar, in view of the fact that the only sentence possible was one for life imprisonment, the sentence and judgment were sufficiently specific. (In re Heath, supra.)

The petition is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 P. 546, 193 Cal. 192, 1924 Cal. LEXIS 297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-heath-cal-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack