Plum v. State Board of Control

TUTTLE, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of dismissal entered after a demurrer to a petition for a writ of

[383]

mandate had been sustained, without leave to amend. Petitioner seeks to compel respondent board of control to “approve and recommend to this legislature that your petitioner’s claim for $5,000 against the State of California be paid in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid Act. ’ ’ (Stats. 1913, p. 245, and amendments thereto, made by Stats. 1931, p. 1615; Peering’s Gen. Laws 1937, Act 1681.)

The action is based upon the statute mentioned above, sections 1 and 5 of which read as follows:

“Sec. 1. (Claim of persons erroneously convicted.) Any person who, having been convicted of any crime against the state of California amounting to a felony, and having been imprisoned therefor in a state prison of this state shall hereafter be granted a pardon by the governor of this state for the reason that the crime with which he was charged was either not committed at all or, if committed, was not committed by him, or who, being

innocent of the crime with which he was charged for either of the foregoing reasons, shall have served the term or any part thereof for which he was imprisoned,

may, under the conditions hereinafter provided, present a claim against the state to the state board of control for the

pecuniary injury sustained by him through such erroneou's conviction and imprisonment.

(Italics added.)

“See. 5. (Board to report approved claim to legislature.)

If the evidence shows that the crime with which the claimant was charged was

either

not committed at all, or, if committed, was not committed by the claimant, omd that the claimant did not, by any act or omission either intentionally or negligently, contribute to the bri/nging about of his arrest or conviction, and that the claimant has sustained pecuniary injury through his erroneous conviction and imprisonment, the board of control shall report the facts of the case and its conclusions to the next legislature of this state, with a recommendation that an appropriation be made by the legislature for the purpose of indemnifying the claimant for such pecuniary injury; but the amount of the appropriation so recommended shall not exceed in any case, the sum of five thousand dollars.”