In Re Clark

337 P.2d 67, 51 Cal. 2d 838, 1959 Cal. LEXIS 308

• Court: California Supreme Court
• Decided: April 3, 1959
• Docket: Crim. 6383
• Status: Published

Opinions

McCOMB, J.

This is a proceeding in habeas corpus filed by Robert H. Lund, an attorney, hereinafter referred to as “petitioner,” to determine whether the court exceeded its jurisdiction in modifying the terms of probation of William Howard Clark, hereinafter referred to as “defendant.”

Chronology

1. May 16, 1952, defendant pleaded guilty in the Superior Court of San Diego County to the crime of violating section 288a of the Penal Code.

2. June 2, 1952, Judge Glen suspended imposition of sentence for five years (until June 1, 1957) and imposed certain conditions of probation.

3. March 27, 1956, defendant was in custody because he had violated probation for a misdemeanor conviction of another violation of section 288a of the Penal Code. On that date Judge Glen held a hearing relative to modification of probation and ordered that defendant be released from custody and that the terms of the original probation order remain in effect.

4. March 28,1956, Judge Hewieker, ex parte, at the request-of the probation officer, purportedly extended the term of the probation three years to June 1, 1960. The facts upon which he acted were the same as those upon which Judge Glen had acted on March 27, 1956.

5. In 1958 defendant suffered another misdemeanor conviction for violating section 288a of the Penal Code and was taken into custody for violation of probation.

6. November 12, 1958, petitioner sought habeas corpus on the ground that the order of March 28, 1956, purportedly extending the term of probation, was made without the court’s having jurisdiction and that defendant’s probationary period had therefore expired. Judge Glen denied the application for the writ, and Judge Hewieker revoked defendant’s probation and imposed sentence.

Defendant is now in the custody of E. J. Oberhauser, Superintendent of California Institution for Men, at Chino.

Questions: First. Was Judge Dewicker’s order of March 28, 1956, purportedly extending the term of probation, void becaxise the court exceeded its jurisdiction in making it?

Yes. [1] An order modifying the terms of probation based upon the same facts as the original order granting probation is in excess of the jurisdiction of the court, for the reason that there is no factual basis to support it. (In re Bine, 47 Cal.2d 814, 818 [9] [306 P.2d 445].)

Applying the foregoing rule to the facts of the present ease, it appears that Judge Glen, by his order of March 27, 1956, exhausted the jurisdiction of the court to act as to modification of probation upon the facts then before him, and that Judge Hewicker was therefore without jurisdiction to extend the term of probation by his ex parte order of March 28, 1956, predicated upon the same facts.

On the application before him, Judge Glen could have extended the probationary period. Therefore, the question of whether or not, upon the facts before the court on March 27, 1956, such action should be taken was conclusively determined by the order entered on that date.

Since the court was without jurisdiction to make the March 28th order extending the probationary period, it follows that such period expired on June 1, 1957. Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction or power to revoke the probation and enter judgment on November 12, 1958. (People v. O’Donnell, 37 Cal.App. 192, 196 [174 P. 102].)

Second. Since defendant could have appealed from the order of March 28, 1956,1 and the judgment of November 12, 1958,2 is a writ of habeas corpus now available to him?

Yes. It is the general rule that a writ of habeas corpus cannot serve as a substitute for an appeal. (In re Dixon, 41 Cal.2d 756, 759 [1] [264 P.2d 513].) An exception to this rule is: A writ of habeas corpus will lie where it appears upon the face of the record that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose the order or judgment pursuant to which the petitioner is held in custody. (In re Ballas, 53 Cal.App. 109, 111 [1] [199 P. 816]; In re Garrity, 97 Cal. App. 372, 376 [2] [275 P. 480]; see also 24 Cal.Jur.2d (1955), Habeas Corpus, § 13, p. 427.)

The facts in the present case bring it within the exception to the general rule, since the record shows on its face that Judge Hewieker was without jurisdiction to make the order of March 28, 1956, or pronounce the judgment on November 12, 1958.

The writ is granted. The return to the order to show cause heretofore issued shall stand as the return to the writ. Defendant is discharged from the custody of the Superintendent of California Institution for Men at Chino. This order applies only to the commitment in the instant case.

Gibson, C. J., Shenk, J., Traynor, J., and Schauer, J., concurred.

1 In re Bine, 47 Oal.2d 814, 817 [6] [306 P.2d 445],

2 People v. Boiinson, 43 Cal.2d 143, 145 [4] [271 P.2d 872]; In re Davis, 37 Cal.2d 872, 875 [3] [236 P.2d 579],