Ex Parte Riley

75 P. 665, 142 Cal. 124, 1904 Cal. LEXIS 908
California Supreme Court·Decided February 4, 1904·No. Crim. No. 1142.·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner was convicted of violating a county ordinance and sentenced to pay a fine of thirty dollars, or to serve fifteen days in the county jail. He contends that the judgment is void because it does not admit of satisfaction by payment of so much of the fine as is not satisfied by imprisonment at the rate of two dollars a day. It does not, in terms, provide that it may be so satisfied, but we think that is its effect. Whenever it is made to appear that petitioner has paid so much of his fine as remains unsatisfied by imprisonment at two dollars a day he will be entitled to his discharge.

Petition denied.

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

Ex Parte Riley, 75 P. 665, 142 Cal. 124, 1904 Cal. LEXIS 908 (Cal. 1904).

75 P. 665 (Ex Parte Riley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Huewitt
282 P. 406 (California Court of Appeal, 1929)
MacKelprang v. Walker
277 P. 401 (Utah Supreme Court, 1929)
In Re Application of Murphy
250 P. 834 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1926)
In Re Cohen
244 P. 359 (California Supreme Court, 1926)
In Re Glavich
239 P. 707 (California Court of Appeal, 1925)
People v. Magoni
238 P. 112 (California Court of Appeal, 1925)
Matter of Application of Robbins
151 P. 14 (California Court of Appeal, 1915)