In Re Peyser Ex Rel. Taube

DOOLING, J.

Petitioner seeks her release on habeas corpus from further imprisonment in the county jail of the City and County of San Francisco. Petitioner was convicted of two misdemeanors in the municipal court and on March 26, 1946, sentenced to two terms of six months in the county jail without direction as to whether the sentences should run consecutively or concurrently. They therefore must be construed to run concurrently. (Pen. Code, § 669.) On May 29, 1946, she was convicted in the superior court of a violation of section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code and sentenced to serve six months in the county jail. This judgment provided in express terms that the sentence should “run concurrently with the sentence heretofore imposed in the Municipal Court.”

On June 5, 1946, petitioner was convicted of another misdemeanor in the municipal court and again given a six months’ sentence in the county jail. The judgment in this latter ease, as certified in the commitment to the sheriff pursuant to Penal Code, section 1213, makes no provision as to whether this sentence shall run concurrently with or consecutively to the three prior sentences. Below the certificate to this commitment is impressed with a rubber stamp the following words and figures:

“Consecutive #673375

“673374

“and Superior Court #38354.”

The numbers quoted are those given to the three prior criminal proceedings in which sentences were imposed upon petitioner as above recited.

It is alleged in the petition and not denied that with good credit allowances petitioner has completed the service of all four sentences if they are to run concurrently.

The only question presented is the effect, if any, to be given to the rubber stamped words and figures appended to the fourth commitment. We are convinced that they should be given none.

Under section 1213 of the Penal Code the judgment as pronounced must be certified to the officer whose duty it is

[144]

to execute the judgment. (See