In Re Mazuran

California Court of Appeal

In Re Mazuran

207 P. 509, 57 Cal. App. 411, 1922 Cal. App. LEXIS 503

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedApril 24, 1922

DocketCrim. No. 1055.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 207 P. 509 (In Re Mazuran) 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 Mazuran, 207 P. 509, 57 Cal. App. 411, 1922 Cal. App. LEXIS 503 (Cal. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

LANGDON, P. J.

This matter comes before us on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner is confined in the county jail in the city and county of San Francisco by virtue of a warrant of commitment of the police court *412 of said city and county holding said defendant to answer before the superior court on a charge of burglary.

It is contended by appellant, first, that the police court lost jurisdiction of the case by the various postponements made in violation of section 861 of the Penal Code; and, second, that the defendant was committed without reasonable or probable cause. There is no merit in either of these contentions. A postponement of the preliminary examination beyond six days, whether erroneous or not, does not divest the court of jurisdiction. As was said in People v. Van Horn, 119 Cal. 323 [51 Pac. 538]: “If the postponement worked appellants any legal wrong, such wrong consisted in their temporary illegal confinement by the officer who had them in custody, for which, if not lawful, there would have been a remedy at the time.” Furthermore, the record shows at least one continuance was given at the request of the defendant.

After a careful examination of the record before us, we are satisfied that the evidence is amply sufficient to warrant holding defendant to answer to the charge of burglary before the superior court.

The writ is discharged and the prisoner remanded to the custody of the sheriff.

Nourse, J., and Sturtevant, J., concurred.

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

LANGDON, P. J.

This matter comes before us on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner is confined in the county jail in the city and county of San Francisco by virtue of a warrant of commitment of the police court *412 of said city and county holding said defendant to answer before the superior court on a charge of burglary.

It is contended by appellant, first, that the police court lost jurisdiction of the case by the various postponements made in violation of section 861 of the Penal Code; and, second, that the defendant was committed without reasonable or probable cause. There is no merit in either of these contentions. A postponement of the preliminary examination beyond six days, whether erroneous or not, does not divest the court of jurisdiction. As was said in People v. Van Horn, 119 Cal. 323 [51 Pac. 538]: “If the postponement worked appellants any legal wrong, such wrong consisted in their temporary illegal confinement by the officer who had them in custody, for which, if not lawful, there would have been a remedy at the time.” Furthermore, the record shows at least one continuance was given at the request of the defendant.

After a careful examination of the record before us, we are satisfied that the evidence is amply sufficient to warrant holding defendant to answer to the charge of burglary before the superior court.

The writ is discharged and the prisoner remanded to the custody of the sheriff.

Nourse, J., and Sturtevant, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 P. 509, 57 Cal. App. 411, 1922 Cal. App. LEXIS 503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mazuran-calctapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack