Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

70 Cal. 1

Ex parte Mitchell

California Supreme Court

Decided May 28, 1886

California Supreme Court · decided 1886-05-28

<p>The petitioner was charged by an information with the crime of an assault with intent to commit murder. To this information he pleaded not guilty, was tried by a jury, who rendered a verdict against him of guilty of an assault with a deadly weapon. The judgment of the court was that he be imprisoned in the state prison at San Quentin for the term of two years, “ and in addition thereto, he pay a fine of four thousand dollars, and be imprisoned in said state prison one day for every dollar of said fine,” etc. The application was for a writ of habeas corpus to discharge him from his confinement under this judgment.</p>

Relies on People v. Turner

Cited in Anderson (1889)’s definition of “Puwish”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1886-05-28

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1973

6 state decisions

301886189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 →

The Court.

¶11. The punishment authorized by section 245, Penal Code, is not excessive, cruel, or unusual within the meaning of section 6, article 1, of the constitution.

¶22. People v. Turner, 65 Cal. 540, to which we adhere, disposes of the second point made for petitioner.

¶3*33. The entire judgment is not void. . That portion of it providing for imprisonment as a means of enforcing the payment of the fine is separable from the rest. The sentence to imprisonment as a punishment is in force, and the petitioner cannot now be discharged, whatever may hereafter be his rights regarding the order of imprisonment as to the fine. Whether he will be entitled to a discharge on the expiration of the two years, we indicate no opinion.

¶4The petitioner is remanded, and the writ discharged.

/70/cal/1 · .json · Public domain