Ex parte Mitchell

11 P. 488, 70 Cal. 1, 1886 Cal. LEXIS 707
California Supreme Court·Decided May 28, 1886·No. No. 20181·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

The Court.

1. The punishment authorized by section 245, Penal Code, is not excessive, cruel, or unusual within the meaning of section 6, article 1, of the constitution.

2. People v. Turner, 65 Cal. 540, to which we adhere, disposes of the second point made for petitioner.

[3]*33. The entire judgment is not void. . That portion of it providing for imprisonment as a means of enforcing the payment of the fine is separable from the rest. The sentence to imprisonment as a punishment is in force, and the petitioner cannot now be discharged, whatever may hereafter be his rights regarding the order of imprisonment as to the fine. Whether he will be entitled to a discharge on the expiration of the two years, we indicate no opinion.

The petitioner is remanded, and the writ discharged.

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

Ex parte Mitchell, 11 P. 488, 70 Cal. 1, 1886 Cal. LEXIS 707 (Cal. 1886).

11 P. 488 (Ex parte Mitchell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Wingo
534 P.2d 1001 (California Supreme Court, 1975)
People v. Anderson
493 P.2d 880 (California Supreme Court, 1972)
Hoban v. Rice
259 N.E.2d 136 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1970)
Leifert v. Turkington
162 A. 842 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1932)
Wallace v. White
99 A. 452 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1916)
People v. Puente
14 P.R. 109 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1908)
In Re Johnson
93 P. 199 (California Court of Appeal, 1907)
In Re Sullivan
84 P. 781 (California Court of Appeal, 1906)
People v. Morris
8 L.R.A. 685 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1890)