In Re Tartar

California Court of Appeal Oct 13, 1934 No. Crim. No. 1345Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court denied a petition for a writ of habeas corpus because the petitioner had not yet served the minimum term for his underlying conviction of second-degree burglary.

Issues

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus despite not having served the minimum term for his underlying conviction.

Disposition. Writ denied.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the petition is premature, for the punishment of burglary of the second degree is one year to fifteen years (Pen. Code, sec. 461), and it is apparent petitioner has not yet served the term for which he was legally committed.”

1 Cal.App.2d 400 (1934) In the Matter of the Application of GEORGE P. TARTAR for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Crim. No. 1345. California Court of Appeals. Third Appellate District.

October 13, 1934. George P. Tartar, in pro. per., for Petitioner.

U.S. Webb, Attorney-General, and Jess Hession, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent.

The Court.

Petitioner was on January 2, 1930, convicted of the crime of burglary in the second degree. The information also charged petitioner with having suffered two prior convictions. Following his conviction of the crime of burglary as above stated he was adjudged to be an habitual criminal and committed to the state prison at Folsom. [1] The information failed to allege petitioner had served any term for the prior convictions, which is pre-requisite [401] to holding petitioner to be an habitual criminal. (People v. Dawson, 210 Cal. 366 [292 P. 267].)

However, the petition is premature, for the punishment of burglary of the second degree is one year to fifteen years (Pen. Code, sec. 461), and it is apparent petitioner has not yet served the term for which he was legally committed.

Writ denied.

In Re Tartar

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief