In Re Goetz

California Court of Appeal Sep 25, 1941 No. Crim. No. 468Published

Before: Morton

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the petitioner was not illegally deprived of his liberty, as the trial court's order either constituted a valid grant of probation or, alternatively, a lawful sentence for the violation of a municipal ordinance.

Issues

Whether the trial court's judgment and commitment contained fatal variances.
Whether the trial court's order constituted a valid grant of probation.
Whether the sentence imposed for the violation of a municipal ordinance was lawful.

Disposition. dismissed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Attention is directed to certain alleged variances in the complaint, verdict, judgment and commitment. It is sufficient to say that when read together there are no fatal defects.”

“An order placing a defendant on probation, even though it include as a condition a period of detention in the county jail, is not a judgment and sentence.”

“The petition is dismissed and prisoner remanded.”

46 Cal.App.2d 848 (1941) In re RUDY GOETZ, on Habeas Corpus.

Crim. No. 468. California Court of Appeals. Fourth Dist.

Sept. 25, 1941. N. D. Meyer for Petitioner.

George F. Holden, District Attorney (Orange County), and Roland Thompson, City Attorney (Newport Beach), for Respondent.

MORTON, J., pro tem.

Petitioner was found guilty of anchoring a vessel in Newport Harbor, within the jurisdiction of the city of Newport Beach, at an anchorage, which had not been first approved by the harbor master of the city. On appeal to the Superior Court of Orange County the judgment was affirmed. Subsequently, an application for a writ of habeas corpus in said superior court was denied. Being still dissatisfied, petitioner asks this court for his discharge on a writ. [850]

[1] Attention is directed to certain alleged variances in the complaint, verdict, judgment and commitment. It is sufficient to say that when read together there are no fatal defects. (People v. Ring, 26 Cal.App.2d Supp. 768 [70 PaCal.2d 281], at 773; In re Tom Wong, 122 Cal.App. 672 [10 PaCal.2d 797], at 674.)

After the verdict of the jury in the police court, the following judgment was pronounced:

"Wherefore, it is by this Court ordered and adjudged that for said offense you, the said Rudy Goetz pay a fine in the sum of $100 and 90 days in the County jail and the jail sentence be suspended on good behavior and in case said fine not be paid by 9:00 o'clock A. M. of the 28th day of June, 1941, that you, the said defendant be imprisoned in the County Jail of Said County until the fine be duly satisfied in the proportion of one day's imprisonment for every two dollars of the fine, and on the payment of such portion of said fine as shall not have been satisfied by imprisonment at the rate above prescribed, that you, the said defendant be discharged from custody."

"Done in open Court this 24th day of June, 1941."

"Robert Gardner, City Judge."

After reciting the court proceedings the commitment was as follows:

"WHEREFORE, it is by the court here ordered and adjudged that for said offense, you, the said Rudy Goetz do pay a fine in the sum of One Hundred Dollars, and be imprisoned in the County Jail of said County of Orange for the period of Fifty days until the said fine be duly satisfied, in the proportion of one day's imprisonment for every two dollars of said fine, and on payment of such portion of said fine as shall not have been satisfied by imprisonment at the rate above prescribed, said defendant be discharged from custody."

In Re Goetz

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief