In Re Denecke

California Court of Appeal

In Re Denecke

200 P. 53, 53 Cal. App. 797, 1921 Cal. App. LEXIS 433

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 17, 1921

DocketCrim. No. 579.

StatusPublished

This text of 200 P. 53 (In Re Denecke) 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 Denecke, 200 P. 53, 53 Cal. App. 797, 1921 Cal. App. LEXIS 433 (Cal. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

HART, J.

The petitioner has addressed his application to me, as a justice of this court, for a writ of habeas corpus. Said petitioner is confined in the state prison at Represa under a sentence of imprisonment for the crime of burglary of the second degree. The prison board fixed the term of his imprisonment "at three years. He now claims that he is under illegal restraint of his liberty, his claim being that the said prison board exceeded its authority or jurisdiction in determining what his term of imprisonment should be. The specific grounds upon which the petitioner claims that he is entitled to be released are the same as those relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Ex parte Carlton, ante, p. 225, [200 Pac. 51], in which, an opinion was filed holding that the grounds upon which the said petitioner claimed to be entitled to his release from custody are without legal force, and thereupon denying the petition for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus. It follows, of course, that the petition herein for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied, and, upon the authority of the said case of Ex parte Carlton, such is the order.

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

HART, J.

The petitioner has addressed his application to me, as a justice of this court, for a writ of habeas corpus. Said petitioner is confined in the state prison at Represa under a sentence of imprisonment for the crime of burglary of the second degree. The prison board fixed the term of his imprisonment "at three years. He now claims that he is under illegal restraint of his liberty, his claim being that the said prison board exceeded its authority or jurisdiction in determining what his term of imprisonment should be. The specific grounds upon which the petitioner claims that he is entitled to be released are the same as those relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Ex parte Carlton, ante, p. 225, [200 Pac. 51], in which, an opinion was filed holding that the grounds upon which the said petitioner claimed to be entitled to his release from custody are without legal force, and thereupon denying the petition for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus. It follows, of course, that the petition herein for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied, and, upon the authority of the said case of Ex parte Carlton, such is the order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 P. 53, 53 Cal. App. 797, 1921 Cal. App. LEXIS 433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-denecke-calctapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack