In Re Gough

California Court of Appeal

In Re Gough

296 P. 658, 112 Cal. App. 218, 1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 991

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 26, 1931

DocketDocket No. 1621.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 296 P. 658 (In Re Gough) 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 Gough, 296 P. 658, 112 Cal. App. 218, 1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 991 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

*219 THE COURT.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner claims that he is unlawfully detained of his liberty at San Quentin state prison. It appears from tlie petition that petitioner is held by virtue of a commitment issued out of the Superior Court in and for the County of Alameda pursuant to a judgment rendered upon a plea of “guilty” to a charge of grand larceny. The board of prison directors determined that the term to be served by jpetitioner is ten years. It is claimed that the act of the board in fixing said sentence to ten years was arbitrary, discriminatory and in abuse of the authority and discretion vested in it, for the reason that others convicted of a like offense have been determined to suffer imprisonment for a much less time than that imposed on petitioner, for which reason the act of said board contravenes the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and likewise contravenes the provisions of article I, section 11, of the Constitution of the state of California. There is no merit in the contention. Section 1168 of the Penal Code gives to the state board of prison directors a discretion in fixing the term of punishment of persons convicted of crimes, taking into consideration the character of the prisoner.

The application is denied.

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

*219 THE COURT.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner claims that he is unlawfully detained of his liberty at San Quentin state prison. It appears from tlie petition that petitioner is held by virtue of a commitment issued out of the Superior Court in and for the County of Alameda pursuant to a judgment rendered upon a plea of “guilty” to a charge of grand larceny. The board of prison directors determined that the term to be served by jpetitioner is ten years. It is claimed that the act of the board in fixing said sentence to ten years was arbitrary, discriminatory and in abuse of the authority and discretion vested in it, for the reason that others convicted of a like offense have been determined to suffer imprisonment for a much less time than that imposed on petitioner, for which reason the act of said board contravenes the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and likewise contravenes the provisions of article I, section 11, of the Constitution of the state of California. There is no merit in the contention. Section 1168 of the Penal Code gives to the state board of prison directors a discretion in fixing the term of punishment of persons convicted of crimes, taking into consideration the character of the prisoner.

The application is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

296 P. 658, 112 Cal. App. 218, 1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 991, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-gough-calctapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack