Ralph Bravo v. Walter E. Craven, Warden

Ninth Circuit

Ralph Bravo v. Walter E. Craven, Warden

433 F.2d 1371

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 8, 1970

Docket24940_1

StatusPublished

This text of 433 F.2d 1371 (Ralph Bravo v. Walter E. Craven, Warden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ralph Bravo v. Walter E. Craven, Warden, 433 F.2d 1371 (9th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, brought by a state prisoner convicted of the possession of heroin.

Originally convicted of a violation of possession of heroin for purpose of sale (§ 11500.5 of the Health & Safety Code of the State of California), after a plea of guilty to possession of heroin (§ 11500. of the Health & Safety Code of the State of California, the California District Court of Appeals found the above two sections of the Health & Safety Code defined two separate and distinct crimes; and held the violation of § 11500. a lesser offense necessarily included in § 11500.5. It corrected and modified the judgment to show defendant’s convictions on his plea of guilty was of the lesser offense. Cf. People v. Bravo, 237 Cal.App.2d 459, 46 Cal.Rptr. 921 (1965).

After an order to show cause was issued, and a response and traverse filed, and after a review of all required state court records and transcripts, the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus was denied by the District Court Judge, Hon. Harry Pregerson, 319 F.Supp. 154 (C.T. 170-175, incl.).

We refer to and incorporate Judge Pregerson’s Memorandum and Order of Denial, as our own, and affirm.

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

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, brought by a state prisoner convicted of the possession of heroin.

Originally convicted of a violation of possession of heroin for purpose of sale (§ 11500.5 of the Health & Safety Code of the State of California), after a plea of guilty to possession of heroin (§ 11500. of the Health & Safety Code of the State of California, the California District Court of Appeals found the above two sections of the Health & Safety Code defined two separate and distinct crimes; and held the violation of § 11500. a lesser offense necessarily included in § 11500.5. It corrected and modified the judgment to show defendant’s convictions on his plea of guilty was of the lesser offense. Cf. People v. Bravo, 237 Cal.App.2d 459, 46 Cal.Rptr. 921 (1965).

After an order to show cause was issued, and a response and traverse filed, and after a review of all required state court records and transcripts, the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus was denied by the District Court Judge, Hon. Harry Pregerson, 319 F.Supp. 154 (C.T. 170-175, incl.).

We refer to and incorporate Judge Pregerson’s Memorandum and Order of Denial, as our own, and affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

433 F.2d 1371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ralph-bravo-v-walter-e-craven-warden-ca9-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack