In Re Booth

California Court of Appeal

In Re Booth

186 P. 841, 44 Cal. App. 660, 1919 Cal. App. LEXIS 568

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedDecember 9, 1919

DocketCrim. No. 882.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 186 P. 841 (In Re Booth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Booth, 186 P. 841, 44 Cal. App. 660, 1919 Cal. App. LEXIS 568 (Cal. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

This is an application for a writ of hateas corpus. The petitioner, who is confined in the California state prison at San Quentin, was sentenced by the superior court, in and for the county of Butte, on Septem *661 ber 24, 1917, “for the indeterminate term of one to fourteen years, ’ ’ after having entered a plea of guilty to the crime of forgery, committed on the eighteenth day of June, 1917, before the indeterminate sentence law of this state went into effect. Thereafter, and pursuant to the personal request of the petitioner, the court made an order for his return into court, to the end that a legal judgment might be pronounced and entered in the case, following the procedure laid down in In the Matter of the Application of Charles Lee for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, 177 Cal. 690, [171 Pac. 958]. The defendant was, on the twenty-second day of March, sentenced to serve a term of five years in the state penitentiary at San Quentin. The defendant thereupon in open court gave notice of, and thereafter perfected, an appeal from the judgment. [1] The precise questions, presented by this petition, were considered by the district court of appeal for the third appellate district and were decided adversely to the appellant. (People v. Booth, 37 Cal. App. 650, [174 Pac. 685].)

The petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is, therefore, denied.

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

THE COURT.

This is an application for a writ of hateas corpus. The petitioner, who is confined in the California state prison at San Quentin, was sentenced by the superior court, in and for the county of Butte, on Septem *661 ber 24, 1917, “for the indeterminate term of one to fourteen years, ’ ’ after having entered a plea of guilty to the crime of forgery, committed on the eighteenth day of June, 1917, before the indeterminate sentence law of this state went into effect. Thereafter, and pursuant to the personal request of the petitioner, the court made an order for his return into court, to the end that a legal judgment might be pronounced and entered in the case, following the procedure laid down in In the Matter of the Application of Charles Lee for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, 177 Cal. 690, [171 Pac. 958]. The defendant was, on the twenty-second day of March, sentenced to serve a term of five years in the state penitentiary at San Quentin. The defendant thereupon in open court gave notice of, and thereafter perfected, an appeal from the judgment. [1] The precise questions, presented by this petition, were considered by the district court of appeal for the third appellate district and were decided adversely to the appellant. (People v. Booth, 37 Cal. App. 650, [174 Pac. 685].)

The petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is, therefore, denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 P. 841, 44 Cal. App. 660, 1919 Cal. App. LEXIS 568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-booth-calctapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack