In Re Conmy

California Court of Appeal May 5, 1937 No. Crim. 1561Published

Before: Plummer

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defect in a warrant of arrest does not deprive the superior court of jurisdiction to conduct commitment proceedings, provided the underlying affidavit establishes the necessary jurisdictional facts.

Issues

Does a defective warrant of arrest invalidate the superior court's jurisdiction to conduct commitment proceedings for inebriety?
Is the timing of a commitment hearing a matter of judicial discretion?
Does the commitment order sufficiently demonstrate that all statutory requirements were met?

Disposition. writ discharged and petitioner remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the fact that the warrant was defective does not affect the jurisdiction of the superior court to hear and determine whether the facts set forth in the affidavit are true and correct”

“the affidavit upon which the warrant of arrest is to be based has been held by the courts of this state to be the jurisdictional basis upon which the proceedings must either stand or fall.”

“the commitment being all that the law requires, it must follow that the writ issued herein be discharged and the petitioner remanded.”

PLUMMER, J.

By this proceeding the above-named petitioner seeks his discharge on

habeas corpus

from the Napa State Hospital to which he had been committed on a charge of excessive use of intoxicating liquors to such an extent that he had lost the power of self-control. Based upon the provisions of section 2185c of the Political Code, the petitioner, on the 19th day of February, 1937, was committed to the in

[668]

stitution just named for a period of six months as a person coming within the provisions of this section.

The chief contention of the petitioner upon the hearing of this matter was, and in the brief filed by his counsel is, that the warrant of arrest by which he was brought before the superior court of the county of Marin upon the charge of being a person who had lost the power of self-control through the excessive use of intoxicating liquors, was defective in this, that the warrant of arrest appeared not to have been signed by the magistrate issuing the same.

While it is provided in section 2185c,

supra,

that the affidavit filed before the magistrate, and also the warrant issued by the magistrate, shall be served upon the person named therein, the fact that the warrant was defective does not affect the jurisdiction of the superior court to hear and determine whether the facts set forth in the affidavit are true and correct, and whether the condition of the person charged as being an inebriate and of having lost the power of self-control is such as to warrant his commitment to a state hospital for the purpose of improving his condition or affecting a cure.

The petitioner’s contention as to the defectiveness of the warrant, and as to what we have just stated in relation to its noneffeet upon the jurisdiction of the superior court, is fully answered in the opinion of the court in

In re Kaster, 52

Cal. App. 454 [198 Pac. 1029]. It is there shown that though an officer may be liable for false arrest in the execution of a defective warrant, the fact of the arrest and the bringing of the person before the superior court for hearing and determination is not affected by reason of any defect in the warrant.

In Re Conmy

AI Brief

PLUMMER, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief