In re Leyva

California Court of Appeal

In re Leyva

289 P.2d 271, 136 Cal. App. 2d 750, 1955 Cal. App. LEXIS 1550

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedNovember 7, 1955

DocketCrim. No. 3207

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 289 P.2d 271 (In re Leyva) 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 Leyva, 289 P.2d 271, 136 Cal. App. 2d 750, 1955 Cal. App. LEXIS 1550 (Cal. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

PETERS, P. J.

This petition for habeas corpus is based on the contention that petitioner was convicted by the use of illegally secured evidence. There is no allegation that the point was raised before the trial court or on appeal. The sole contention is that the use of such evidence denied to petitioner “due process” of law. In People v. Cahan, 44 Cal.2d 434 [282 P.2d 905], the Supreme Court was careful to point out that the rule involved was a rule of evidence and not a rule of constitutional law. (See pp. 439-444.) If this determination is to be questioned, it should be in the Supreme Court and not in an intermediate appellate court that is bound by Supreme Court determinations. Under the circumstances, habeas corpus may not be used to relitigate the issue.

The petition for habeas corpus is denied.

Bray, J., and Wood (Fred B.), J., concurred.

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

PETERS, P. J.

This petition for habeas corpus is based on the contention that petitioner was convicted by the use of illegally secured evidence. There is no allegation that the point was raised before the trial court or on appeal. The sole contention is that the use of such evidence denied to petitioner “due process” of law. In People v. Cahan, 44 Cal.2d 434 [282 P.2d 905], the Supreme Court was careful to point out that the rule involved was a rule of evidence and not a rule of constitutional law. (See pp. 439-444.) If this determination is to be questioned, it should be in the Supreme Court and not in an intermediate appellate court that is bound by Supreme Court determinations. Under the circumstances, habeas corpus may not be used to relitigate the issue.

The petition for habeas corpus is denied.

Bray, J., and Wood (Fred B.), J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 P.2d 271, 136 Cal. App. 2d 750, 1955 Cal. App. LEXIS 1550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-leyva-calctapp-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack