In Re Cavitt

California Court of Appeal Nov 8, 1941 No. Crim. 3508Published

Before: White

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the Municipal Court of the City of Los Angeles was divested of jurisdiction over the petitioner's criminal case once the Justice's Court of Whittier Township was judicially determined to be a Class A court, rendering the subsequent judgments void. Consequently, the petitioner was ordered discharged from custody.

Issues

Whether the Municipal Court of the City of Los Angeles lacked jurisdiction to try and sentence the petitioner after the Justice's Court of Whittier Township was determined to be a Class A court with exclusive jurisdiction.
Whether a judgment rendered by a court after it has been divested of jurisdiction is void ab initio, even if affirmed on appeal.

Disposition. Petitioner discharged from custody.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We hold that the municipal court was without jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of petitioner or to pronounce judgment in the case against him.”

“When a court that is divested of jurisdiction undertakes to pronounce a judgment in a cause which the court did not have jurisdiction to hear or try, such judgment is void ab initio.”

[699]

WHITE, J.

This is a proceeding in

habeas corpus

to secure the release of W. D. Cavitt from the custody of the Chief of Police of the city of Los Angeles. Petitioner was a supervisor at the Whittier State School, which is a reformatory maintained for the incarceration and training of boys committed thereto by the juvenile and superior courts of California.

On October 25, 1940, by complaint filed in the Municipal Court of the City of Los Angeles, petitioner was charged with six counts of violation of section 681 of the Penal Code and six counts of violation of section 242 of the same code. The complaint alleged that each of the offenses charged occurred “in Whittier Township in the County of Los Angeles.” After pleas of not guilty were interposed, trial was had in the Municipal Court of the City of Los Angeles commencing on January 2, 1941, which trial resulted in the conviction of petitioner of the offenses charged in counts 2, 4, 5, 10 and 12, and his acquittal on the other counts set forth in the complaint. Judgment was pronounced on January 29, 1941. Petitioner was sentenced to the city jail for thirty days on count 2, twenty days on count 4, thirty days on count 5, fifteen days on count 10, and thirty days on count 12. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively. From these judgments petitioner appealed to the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Los Angeles, Appellate Department. That court affirmed the judgments on counts 2, 4, 10 and 12 and reversed the judgment on count 5, with directions to the municipal court to dismiss this last-mentioned count.

(People

Cavitt,

No. Cr. A. 1792.) Upon the going down of the

remittitur

the municipal court issued four commitments based on the four charges of battery hereinabove referred to.

It is first contended by petitioner that he is entitled to be discharged from custody for the reason that when the complaint was filed in the Los Angeles Municipal Court, as well as when the ease was tried and judgment rendered, the Justice’s Court of Whittier Township was vested with exclusive jurisdiction of the misdemeanor offenses charged, by reason of which fact the Los Angeles Municipal Court was without jurisdiction and its judgments consequently void.

In Re Cavitt

AI Brief

WHITE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief