Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

10 Cal. App. 282

101 P 810

Ex Parte King

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 19, 1909

California Court of Appeal · decided 1909-03-19

PETITION for a writ of habeas corpus to determine the legality of a conviction for misdemeanor in the Justice’s Court of Union Township, Humboldt County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Relies on People v. Kinsey · People v. Fuqua · People v. Tucker

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1909-03-19

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently September 1954

7 state decisions

40190919101920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

BURNETT, J.

¶1 Petitioner, charged with a misdemeanor, was tried and convicted in the justice court of Union town *283 ship, Humboldt county, and was sentenced to serve a term of thirty days in the county jail. At the time of his arraignment he interposed the plea of not guilty and also, in appropriate phraseology, of “once in jeopardy.” The jury failed to find upon this latter plea and it was contended here by petitioner that the judgment of the court was void, therefore entitling him to his discharge on habeas corpus.

¶2 It is no doubt true that there should have been a verdict on each plea. (People v. Kinsey, 51 Cal. 278; People v. Helbing, 59 Cal. 567; People v. Fuqua, 61 Cal. 377.)

¶3 Hence, judgment was improperly passed upon defendant and upon appeal it would be the duty of the appellate court to reverse it and order a new trial. (People v. Tucker, 115 Cal. 337, [47 Pac. 111].)

¶4 But we have found no case, and we have been cited to none, holding that such a judgment is void upon its face and therefore assailable upon application for a writ of habeas corpus.

¶5 Indeed, it seems to be settled by authority, as stated in Church on Habeas Corpus, section 253: “Neither will once in jeopardy be reviewed or inquired into on habeas corpus. If pleaded and disregarded, it is an error to be corrected by appeal.”

¶6 For the reason that the question is one of error and not of jurisdiction the application of petitioner could not be entertained, but as he was remanded at the hearing no further order is necessary.

¶7 Chipman, P. J., and Hart, J., concurred.

/10/calapp/282 · .json · Public domain