In Re Petition of Morck

California Supreme Court

In Re Petition of Morck

181 P. 657, 180 Cal. 384, 1919 Cal. LEXIS 497

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedMay 19, 1919

DocketCrim. No. 2253.

StatusPublished

Cited by29 cases

This text of 181 P. 657 (In Re Petition of Morck) 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 Petition of Morck, 181 P. 657, 180 Cal. 384, 1919 Cal. LEXIS 497 (Cal. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

In view of the decisions of this court we see no merit in any of the claims made in support of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, with the possible exception of the claim that under the circumstances and in view of the provisions of section 220 of the Penal Code, the maximum penalty in petitioner’s case was fourteen years. As to this it is sufficient to say that while the sentence imposed was one 'of twenty-five years such judgment is not void in toto. It is a valid sentence for the term authorized by the law. The judgment was pronounced December 13, 1916. [1] Obviously, therefore, the petitioner has not served the time for which he may be lawfully imprisoned. [2] It is the established practice of this court not to consider any question of excess of sentence until the expiration of the time for which the prisoner may be lawfully confined. It is clear, therefore, that a writ should not he granted at this time. In what -we 'have said we are not to be understood as definitely determining that the judgment in this case was not one authorized by law.

The application for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. '

All concur except Lawlor, J., absent.

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

THE COURT.

In view of the decisions of this court we see no merit in any of the claims made in support of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, with the possible exception of the claim that under the circumstances and in view of the provisions of section 220 of the Penal Code, the maximum penalty in petitioner’s case was fourteen years. As to this it is sufficient to say that while the sentence imposed was one 'of twenty-five years such judgment is not void in toto. It is a valid sentence for the term authorized by the law. The judgment was pronounced December 13, 1916. [1] Obviously, therefore, the petitioner has not served the time for which he may be lawfully imprisoned. [2] It is the established practice of this court not to consider any question of excess of sentence until the expiration of the time for which the prisoner may be lawfully confined. It is clear, therefore, that a writ should not he granted at this time. In what -we 'have said we are not to be understood as definitely determining that the judgment in this case was not one authorized by law.

The application for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. '

All concur except Lawlor, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 P. 657, 180 Cal. 384, 1919 Cal. LEXIS 497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-petition-of-morck-cal-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack