People v. Wilson

PETERS, P. J.

The defendant appeals from an order denying his motion to vacate several judgments of conviction. The motion was predicated upon the claim that the trial court had no jurisdiction of his person at the time such judgments were rendered. Based on this premise, it is urged that such judgments were void and that, for this reason, the further incarceration of defendant, under such void judgments, violates due process of law.

The record shows that in 1947 in San Francisco defendant was charged with four robberies; that after hearings in the municipal court he was held to answer in the superior court; that thereafter four informations were filed by the district attorney charging the commission by defendant of four armed robberies; that defendant pleaded not guilty to all charges; that the four charges were consolidated for trial; that the jury found defendant guilty on all four charges, and found that defendant was armed with a deadly weapon when such offenses were committed; that on March 24, 1947, defendant was sentenced, three of the sentences to run consecutively, and one concurrently; that such judgments of conviction have long since become final, no appeal having been taken therefrom. No contention is made that the evidence introduced on his trial did not sustain the judgments of conviction.

In May of 1951 defendant moved the superior court to annul and vacate the judgments on the claimed ground that at no time did the court that tried him have jurisdiction of his person. In support of this claim the affidavit of defendant avers that in January of 1947 he was arrested in Stockton without a warrant and without any offense having been com

[718]

mitted in the presence of the arresting officers; that he was booked in the city jail for “investigation,” and “held for the United States Marshal”; that the next day three San Francisco officers interrogated him at the Stockton jail; that without a warrant and without taking defendant • before a magistrate in San Joaquin County on a fugitive warrant, and without defendant’s consent, these three officers drove defendant to the San Francisco jail; that thereafter, in San Francisco, he was charged with and convicted of the four armed robberies heretofore mentioned. There is no denial of the truth of these allegations. Admittedly, although represented by counsel, these facts were never called to the attention of the municipal court or of the superior court. It is defendant’s theory that, because of these circumstances, the courts of San Francisco at no time had jurisdiction of his person, and that, for this reason, the judgments are void and should be set aside.