In re McNally

California Supreme Court

In re McNally

293 P.2d 777, 46 Cal. 2d 307, 1956 Cal. LEXIS 184

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 28, 1956

DocketCrim. No. 5783

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 293 P.2d 777 (In re McNally) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re McNally, 293 P.2d 777, 46 Cal. 2d 307, 1956 Cal. LEXIS 184 (Cal. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

McCOMB, J.

This is an order to show cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not issue. The attorney general has filed a return, which discloses that after defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of burglary, in the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Los Angeles, the court found the burglary to be of the second degree and judgment was entered accordingly on July 18, 1949, in action Number 126861 of said court; that on August 2, 1949, defendant was received at San Quentin State Prison, and on February 2, 1951, was paroled to Los Angeles County; that on July 25, 1953, his parole was suspended and his term fixed at the maximum; that on October 15, 1953, after trial before a jury, defendant was found guilty in action Number 156252 in the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Los Angeles, of the crime of grand theft; that no appeal was taken from either of the foregoing judgments within the time prescribed by law, and they have •now become final judgments; and that defendant is now in the custody of the warden of the state prison at San Quentin by virtue of such valid and existing final judgments.

Therefore, since it appears defendant is being held in custody pursuant to a final judgment valid upon its face and it does not appear that any constitutional right has been violated, the order to show cause is discharged and the petition is denied. (See In re Manchester, 33 Cal.2d 740, 742 [1] [204 P.2d 881]; In re Trombley, 31 Cal.2d 801, 812 [12] [193 P.2d 734]; In re McInturff, 37 Cal.2d 876, 880 [3] [236 P.2d 574]; In re Todd, 44 Cal.App. 496, 502 [3] [186 P. 790].)

Gibson, C. J., Shenk, J., Carter, J., Traynor, J., Schauer, J., and Spence, J., concurred.

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

McCOMB, J.

This is an order to show cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not issue. The attorney general has filed a return, which discloses that after defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of burglary, in the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Los Angeles, the court found the burglary to be of the second degree and judgment was entered accordingly on July 18, 1949, in action Number 126861 of said court; that on August 2, 1949, defendant was received at San Quentin State Prison, and on February 2, 1951, was paroled to Los Angeles County; that on July 25, 1953, his parole was suspended and his term fixed at the maximum; that on October 15, 1953, after trial before a jury, defendant was found guilty in action Number 156252 in the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Los Angeles, of the crime of grand theft; that no appeal was taken from either of the foregoing judgments within the time prescribed by law, and they have •now become final judgments; and that defendant is now in the custody of the warden of the state prison at San Quentin by virtue of such valid and existing final judgments.

Therefore, since it appears defendant is being held in custody pursuant to a final judgment valid upon its face and it does not appear that any constitutional right has been violated, the order to show cause is discharged and the petition is denied. (See In re Manchester, 33 Cal.2d 740, 742 [1] [204 P.2d 881]; In re Trombley, 31 Cal.2d 801, 812 [12] [193 P.2d 734]; In re McInturff, 37 Cal.2d 876, 880 [3] [236 P.2d 574]; In re Todd, 44 Cal.App. 496, 502 [3] [186 P. 790].)

Gibson, C. J., Shenk, J., Carter, J., Traynor, J., Schauer, J., and Spence, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 P.2d 777, 46 Cal. 2d 307, 1956 Cal. LEXIS 184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mcnally-cal-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack