In re Taylor

California Court of Appeal

In re Taylor

34 P.2d 1036, 140 Cal. App. 102, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 470

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJuly 23, 1934

DocketCrim. No. 2570

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 34 P.2d 1036 (In re Taylor) 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 Taylor, 34 P.2d 1036, 140 Cal. App. 102, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 470 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

STEPHENS, P. J.

A petition on behalf of Claude Taylor for a writ of habeas corpus was allowed and wre are here considering the matter after return and submission.

Taylor was convicted of an offense, probation was denied and he was sentenced to the “County jail . . . for the term of ninety days, to be served from 7.00 p. m. of Monday to 6.00 p. m. of Wednesday”. (Quotation from judgment.) The ninety days have not run and it is claimed that Taylor is imprisoned under a void sentence. We think not. By the provisions of section 1203 of the Penal Code suspension of sentence is limited to probation and probation in this case was specifically denied. The sentence to the county jail for ninety days is valid but the instruction to the sheriff to free the prisoner several days of each week [103]*103was an attempt to grant periods of suspension from the sentence imposed and is void. (See In re Howard, 72 Cal. App. 374 [237 Pac. 406], for discussion of principles involved and citation of cases.)

The writ is discharged and the prisoner is remanded.

Craig, J., and Desmond, J., concurred.

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

STEPHENS, P. J.

A petition on behalf of Claude Taylor for a writ of habeas corpus was allowed and wre are here considering the matter after return and submission.

Taylor was convicted of an offense, probation was denied and he was sentenced to the “County jail . . . for the term of ninety days, to be served from 7.00 p. m. of Monday to 6.00 p. m. of Wednesday”. (Quotation from judgment.) The ninety days have not run and it is claimed that Taylor is imprisoned under a void sentence. We think not. By the provisions of section 1203 of the Penal Code suspension of sentence is limited to probation and probation in this case was specifically denied. The sentence to the county jail for ninety days is valid but the instruction to the sheriff to free the prisoner several days of each week [103]*103was an attempt to grant periods of suspension from the sentence imposed and is void. (See In re Howard, 72 Cal. App. 374 [237 Pac. 406], for discussion of principles involved and citation of cases.)

The writ is discharged and the prisoner is remanded.

Craig, J., and Desmond, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 P.2d 1036, 140 Cal. App. 102, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-taylor-calctapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack