In Re Martin

197 P. 365, 51 Cal. App. 706, 1921 Cal. App. LEXIS 698
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedMarch 9, 1921
DocketCrim. No. 976.
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 197 P. 365 (In Re Martin) 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 Martin, 197 P. 365, 51 Cal. App. 706, 1921 Cal. App. LEXIS 698 (Cal. Ct. App. 1921).

Opinion

THE COURT.

This is an application in behalf of John Martin for writ of habeas corpus.

On reading the petition for the writ in the first instance the' court was of the opinion that an order for the writ should not issue, for the reason that it did not sufficiently appear from the facts stated that the petitioner was entitled to the relief sought. Permission was granted to file an amended petition, on filing and reading of which the court is of the opinion that the application should be denied.

Two points are presented for our consideration:

[1] If it be true, as alleged, that petitioner is being again prosecuted for an offense for which he was once in jeopardy, he may upon the trial of his case plead such conviction and establish the identity of the cases by evidence, the burden being on him. (People v. Faust, 113 Cal. 172,176, [45 Pac. 261].)
[2] Petitioner also contends that he is being held to answer in the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco on excessive bail. If this be true, it does not appear that he has made timely or any application to the court below for a reduction of the amount. Until he has done so and been denied any relief, we do not feel that this court is in a position to entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus on that ground.

The writ is denied.

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

Related

People v. Norman
252 Cal. App. 2d 381 (California Court of Appeal, 1967)
People v. Vigghiany
181 Cal. App. 2d 621 (California Court of Appeal, 1960)
In Re Brumback
299 P.2d 217 (California Supreme Court, 1956)
In Re Chapman
273 P.2d 817 (California Supreme Court, 1954)
In re Clark
109 P.2d 407 (California Court of Appeal, 1941)
State v. Richardson
30 Ohio Law. Abs. 179 (Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, 1939)
In Re Polizzi
22 N.E.2d 569 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1939)
People ex rel. Rothensies v. Searles
229 A.D. 603 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1930)
State v. Douglass
208 P. 236 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
197 P. 365, 51 Cal. App. 706, 1921 Cal. App. LEXIS 698, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-martin-calctapp-1921.