In re Glancy

California Court of Appeal

In re Glancy

34 P.2d 834, 139 Cal. App. 766, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 635

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJuly 18, 1934

DocketCrim. No. 2576

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 34 P.2d 834 (In re Glancy) 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 Glancy, 34 P.2d 834, 139 Cal. App. 766, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 635 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

STEPHENS, P. J.

Luther Glancy was convicted in a justice’s court of disturbing the peace and sentenced to the county jail for six months. While confined therein, and before the expiration of ninety days, the maximum legal imprisonment for such offense, he petitions, through his attorney, in habeas corpus to be released on the ground that the judgment is void. But the judgment is not void and habeas cor pics will not assist him until the legal time has been served. (In re Morck, 180 Cal. 384 [181 Pac. 657]; In re Rosencrantz, 205 Cal. 534 [271 Pac. 902], and Id., 211 Cal. 749 [297 Pac. 15].) Counsel for petitioner argues that the cited cases arose from judgments under the indeterminate sentence law. He also argues that no intendments arise from judgments of justice courts. We think these points make no difference in the problem.

The written direction of the justice to the sheriff states that Glancy is to be confined in the county jail until the fine named in the judgment is paid. Since no fine is mentioned in the judgment, this may be regarded as a nullity.

Writ discharged and the prisoner remanded.

Craig, J., and Desmond, J., concurred.

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

STEPHENS, P. J.

Luther Glancy was convicted in a justice’s court of disturbing the peace and sentenced to the county jail for six months. While confined therein, and before the expiration of ninety days, the maximum legal imprisonment for such offense, he petitions, through his attorney, in habeas corpus to be released on the ground that the judgment is void. But the judgment is not void and habeas cor pics will not assist him until the legal time has been served. (In re Morck, 180 Cal. 384 [181 Pac. 657]; In re Rosencrantz, 205 Cal. 534 [271 Pac. 902], and Id., 211 Cal. 749 [297 Pac. 15].) Counsel for petitioner argues that the cited cases arose from judgments under the indeterminate sentence law. He also argues that no intendments arise from judgments of justice courts. We think these points make no difference in the problem.

The written direction of the justice to the sheriff states that Glancy is to be confined in the county jail until the fine named in the judgment is paid. Since no fine is mentioned in the judgment, this may be regarded as a nullity.

Writ discharged and the prisoner remanded.

Craig, J., and Desmond, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 P.2d 834, 139 Cal. App. 766, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 635, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-glancy-calctapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack