In Re Murdock

California Supreme Court Mar 18, 1936 No. Crim. 3956Published

Before: Thompson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the People may appeal a superior court's discharge of a defendant in a habeas corpus proceeding involving an extradition warrant, and that the petitioner was a fugitive from justice subject to rendition.

Issues

Whether the People may appeal a superior court order discharging a defendant in a habeas corpus proceeding.
Whether the petitioner, who escaped from a sister state, is a fugitive from justice subject to extradition.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“An appeal may be taken to the district court of appeal by the people from a final order of a superior court made upon the return of a writ of habeas corpus discharging a defendant after his conviction”

“In interstate extradition proceedings it is not the purpose of the writ of habeas corpus to substitute the judgment of a tribunal of the state where the accused is apprehended upon the facts or the law of the matter to be tried.”

THOMPSON, J.

A demand was issued by the Governor of the state of Montana for the return of petitioner and he was taken into custody upon a warrant of rendition in which the crime stated was that of “Escape, a felony”. The peti

[646]

tioner filed his petition for the writ of

habeas corpus

in the Superior Court in Los Angeles County, and upon return being made thereto and the taking of evidence, the petitioner was discharged. An appeal was taken by the People to the District Court of Appeal, and after decision of that court the cause was transferred here for further consideration.

The petitioner having made a motion to dismiss the appeal, the first question with which we are confronted is whether an appeal may be taken by the People in such a situation. Prior to the passage of section 1506 of the Penal Code in 1927, an appeal would not lie after discharge on

habeas corpus. (In re Zany,

164 Cal. 724 [130 Pac. 710].) In other words, a discharge by the superior court was final and conclusive. However, in order to make it impossible for one convicted of an offense prosecuted by indictment or information, to escape punishment without giving the state a right to test the correctness of the ruling of the superior court, the legislature enacted the section mentioned, which reads as follows: “An appeal may be taken to the district court of appeal by the people from a final order of a superior court made upon the return of a writ of

habeas corpus

discharging a defendant after his conviction, in all criminal cases prosecuted by indictment or information in a court of record, excepting criminal cases where judgment of death has been rendered, and in such cases to the supreme court; and in all criminal cases prosecuted by indictment or information in a court of record, where upon appeal or original application after conviction of the defendant an application for a writ of

habeas corpus

has been heard and determined in a district court of appeal, either the defendant or the people may apply for a hearing in the supreme court. Such appeal shall be taken and such application for hearing in the supreme court shall be made in accordance with rules to be laid down by the judicial council. If the people appeal, or petition for hearing in either the district court of appeal or' the supreme court, the defendant shall not, in any ease in which the judgment of conviction has become final, be discharged from custody pending final decision upon the appeal or petition for hearing and he must, in such cases, be retaken into custody if he has been discharged; provided, however, that in bailable cases the defendant may be admitted to bail, in the discretion

In Re Murdock

AI Brief

THOMPSON, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief