Matter of Application of Meads

California Court of Appeal Feb 23, 1915 No. Crim. No. 301.Published

Before: THE COURT. —

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court denied the petition for a writ because the superior court possessed both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over the petitioner, and the petitioner had an adequate remedy through the appellate process.

Issues

Whether the superior court had jurisdiction over the offense and the petitioner's person.
Whether the petitioner had an adequate remedy by appeal to challenge the judgment of conviction.

Disposition. Denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The court had jurisdiction of the offense; Penal Code, section 270; and by service on petitioner it had jurisdiction of his person.”

“Having appeared, opportunity was given him to present the objections he now makes to the judgment of conviction, and if overruled he had his remedy by appeal to this court.”

“The writ is denied.”

It appears from the petition that petitioner was convicted, in the superior court of Sacramento County, of the offense of failing to provide for his minor child the common necessaries of life. The court had jurisdiction of the offense; Penal Code, section 270; and by service on petitioner it had jurisdiction of his person. Having appeared, opportunity was given him to present the objections he now makes to the judgment of conviction, and if overruled he had his remedy by appeal to this court.

The writ is denied.

Matter of Application of Meads

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief