In Re Sanders

California Court of Appeal

In Re Sanders

198 P. 42, 52 Cal. App. 171, 1921 Cal. App. LEXIS 99

California Court of Appeal·Decided April 4, 1921·No. Crim. No. 991.·Published

Opinion

THE COURT.

It appears that the applicant was delivered to the custody of the warden of the state prison at San Quentin on the sixth day of April, 1913, to serve a term of eight years, which period, he contends, will expire on the sixth day of April next. The sole ground for the application is that the petitioner has “been given to know and understand” that the warden at the state prison will not discharge him from custody and restore bim to his liberty until a date some time later than the day *172 upon which he contends he is lawfully entitled to be discharged.

[1] There are two reasons why we cannot entertain this petition at this time: First, we are not in a position to assume that the warden of the state prison will not act in accordance with law and discharge the petitioner, if it be, as alleged in his petition, that he is entitled to a discharge on the sixth day of April, 1921. The second is that the term for which the petitioner was sentenced has not actually expired, and until it has, the petitioner is not illegally detained (Ex parte Ross, 82 Cal. 109, [22 Pac. 1086].)

Application for the writ is denied.

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

THE COURT.

It appears that the applicant was delivered to the custody of the warden of the state prison at San Quentin on the sixth day of April, 1913, to serve a term of eight years, which period, he contends, will expire on the sixth day of April next. The sole ground for the application is that the petitioner has “been given to know and understand” that the warden at the state prison will not discharge him from custody and restore bim to his liberty until a date some time later than the day *172 upon which he contends he is lawfully entitled to be discharged.

[1] There are two reasons why we cannot entertain this petition at this time: First, we are not in a position to assume that the warden of the state prison will not act in accordance with law and discharge the petitioner, if it be, as alleged in his petition, that he is entitled to a discharge on the sixth day of April, 1921. The second is that the term for which the petitioner was sentenced has not actually expired, and until it has, the petitioner is not illegally detained (Ex parte Ross, 82 Cal. 109, [22 Pac. 1086].)

Application for the writ is denied.

In Re Sanders, 198 P. 42, 52 Cal. App. 171, 1921 Cal. App. LEXIS 99 (Cal. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

198 P. 42 (In Re Sanders) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related