Whitney v. Superior Court of Alameda County

California Supreme Court

Whitney v. Superior Court of Alameda County

187 P. 12, 182 Cal. 114, 1920 Cal. LEXIS 494

California Supreme Court·Decided January 26, 1920·No. S. F. No. 9356.·Published·Cited by 16 cases

Opinion

THE COURT.

This is an application for a writ of prohibition. [1] We see no merit in the claim that the act under which petitioner is being prosecuted is invalid as being in violation of provisions of our federal and state constitutions.

No other point made goes to the jurisdiction of the superior court, and consequently prohibition is not available to *115 petitioner. [2] The remedy where an information is filed in the superior court without a previous commitment by a magistrate is by motion to set aside the information on that ground (Pen. Code, sec. 995 et scq.), with a right to review of the action of the trial court on an appeal from the judgment. [3] The objections to the sufficiency of the information to state a public offense fall within the rule announced in In' re Ruef, 150 Cal. 665, [89 Pac. 605]. We express no opinion on the merits of the claims made 'by petitioner in regard to these matters.

The application for a writ of prohibition is denied.

Angellotti, C. J., Lawlor, J., Olney, J., Lennon, J., Shaw,. J., and Wilbur, J., concurred.

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

THE COURT.

This is an application for a writ of prohibition. [1] We see no merit in the claim that the act under which petitioner is being prosecuted is invalid as being in violation of provisions of our federal and state constitutions.

No other point made goes to the jurisdiction of the superior court, and consequently prohibition is not available to *115 petitioner. [2] The remedy where an information is filed in the superior court without a previous commitment by a magistrate is by motion to set aside the information on that ground (Pen. Code, sec. 995 et scq.), with a right to review of the action of the trial court on an appeal from the judgment. [3] The objections to the sufficiency of the information to state a public offense fall within the rule announced in In' re Ruef, 150 Cal. 665, [89 Pac. 605]. We express no opinion on the merits of the claims made 'by petitioner in regard to these matters.

The application for a writ of prohibition is denied.

Angellotti, C. J., Lawlor, J., Olney, J., Lennon, J., Shaw,. J., and Wilbur, J., concurred.

Whitney v. Superior Court of Alameda County, 187 P. 12, 182 Cal. 114, 1920 Cal. LEXIS 494 (Cal. 1920).

Pincite

187 P. 12 (Whitney v. Superior Court of Alameda County) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related