In Re Newell

California Court of Appeal

In Re Newell

220 P. 425, 64 Cal. App. 103, 1923 Cal. App. LEXIS 166

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedOctober 10, 1923

DocketCrim. No. 1160.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 220 P. 425 (In Re Newell) 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 Newell, 220 P. 425, 64 Cal. App. 103, 1923 Cal. App. LEXIS 166 (Cal. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

ST. SURE, J.

Petitioner was charged with violating section 476a of the Penal Code. It is claimed that there were two informations filed, identical in form and substance; that petitioner was acquitted upon the first; that the court exceeded its jurisdiction in proceeding to trial upon the second, which -trial resulted in conviction, and that, therefore, the proceedings were void and petitioner should be discharged.

The application should be denied for the reason that the petition fails to conform to the requirements of section 1474 of the Penal Code in that it is not verified by the oath or affirmation of the party making it. Furthermore, this same question has heretofore been presented to and disposed of upon an application made to the supreme- court (Ex parte Newell, 188 Cal. 508 [206 Pac. 61]). Petitioner herein there raised the question of jurisdiction, and the supreme court held that the validity of the new or second information filed could not be attacked on habeas corpus, and further held that if errors had been committed by the lower court the same were reviewable only on appeal. This same subject matter is now under consideration by the supreme court in the pending appeal of People v. Newell, *104 192 Cal. 659 [221 Pac. 622] (Crim. No. 2573), on hearing from this court, division two. The application for a writ is denied.

Tyler, P. J., concurred.

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

ST. SURE, J.

Petitioner was charged with violating section 476a of the Penal Code. It is claimed that there were two informations filed, identical in form and substance; that petitioner was acquitted upon the first; that the court exceeded its jurisdiction in proceeding to trial upon the second, which -trial resulted in conviction, and that, therefore, the proceedings were void and petitioner should be discharged.

The application should be denied for the reason that the petition fails to conform to the requirements of section 1474 of the Penal Code in that it is not verified by the oath or affirmation of the party making it. Furthermore, this same question has heretofore been presented to and disposed of upon an application made to the supreme- court (Ex parte Newell, 188 Cal. 508 [206 Pac. 61]). Petitioner herein there raised the question of jurisdiction, and the supreme court held that the validity of the new or second information filed could not be attacked on habeas corpus, and further held that if errors had been committed by the lower court the same were reviewable only on appeal. This same subject matter is now under consideration by the supreme court in the pending appeal of People v. Newell, *104 192 Cal. 659 [221 Pac. 622] (Crim. No. 2573), on hearing from this court, division two. The application for a writ is denied.

Tyler, P. J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 P. 425, 64 Cal. App. 103, 1923 Cal. App. LEXIS 166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-newell-calctapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack