In Re Stephens

California Court of Appeal

In Re Stephens

18 P.2d 389, 129 Cal. App. 236, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 983

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJanuary 26, 1933

DocketDocket No. 2310.

StatusPublished

This text of 18 P.2d 389 (In Re Stephens) 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 Stephens, 18 P.2d 389, 129 Cal. App. 236, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 983 (Cal. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

STEPHENS, J.

Through the writ of habeas corpus petitioner asks this court to determine that he is held in illegal restraint under two sentences issued out of the justice’s court. He claims that the acts found by the court to have been committed by him are not prohibited by any law. He raises no question as to the sufficiency of the criminal complaints that served as the bases, of the prosecutions, nor does he question the legality of the act that is alleged to have been violated.

*237 To present his case to us petitioner admits that a trial was had upon each complaint and sets out copies of certain exhibits which he introduced in the trials. There is no claim that these exhibits constitute all of the evidence, and there is nothing before us as to what facts were found by the court. It should be understood that we are not intimating any conclusion as to the propriety of presenting any evidence to us. In the circumstances it is obvious that the writ must be discharged and the petitioner remanded, and such is our order.

Works, P. J., and Craig, J., concurred.

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

STEPHENS, J.

Through the writ of habeas corpus petitioner asks this court to determine that he is held in illegal restraint under two sentences issued out of the justice’s court. He claims that the acts found by the court to have been committed by him are not prohibited by any law. He raises no question as to the sufficiency of the criminal complaints that served as the bases, of the prosecutions, nor does he question the legality of the act that is alleged to have been violated.

*237 To present his case to us petitioner admits that a trial was had upon each complaint and sets out copies of certain exhibits which he introduced in the trials. There is no claim that these exhibits constitute all of the evidence, and there is nothing before us as to what facts were found by the court. It should be understood that we are not intimating any conclusion as to the propriety of presenting any evidence to us. In the circumstances it is obvious that the writ must be discharged and the petitioner remanded, and such is our order.

Works, P. J., and Craig, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 P.2d 389, 129 Cal. App. 236, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 983, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-stephens-calctapp-1933.