In Re Cohen

California Court of Appeal Jul 21, 1930 No. Docket No. 1970.Published

Before: Gates

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a justice's court lacks jurisdiction to try a criminal offense committed outside its township, and a judgment rendered without such jurisdiction is void and subject to collateral attack via habeas corpus, even after an appellate affirmance.

Issues

Does a justice's court have jurisdiction to try a criminal offense committed outside its township?
Does an appellate affirmance of a void judgment preclude a subsequent challenge to jurisdiction via habeas corpus?

Disposition. Petitioner discharged from custody.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the jurisdiction of justices’ courts in criminal causes is now confined to the township wherein the offense was committed.”

“The Justice’s Court of El Monte Township at no time had jurisdiction of the offense. The act or pronouncement of that court was not legally efficacious for any purpose. Its act was a nullity; its judgment was void.”

“an affirmance of a judgment, void for want of jurisdiction, does not change its character and release may thereafter be obtained on the ground of want of jurisdiction.”

GATES, J.,

pro tem.

This is an application for a writ of

habeas corpus.

Petitioner was accused by complaint filed in the Justice’s Court of El Monte Township, Los Angeles County, of having sold intoxicating liquor in the city of Beverly Hills, situated in the same county, during the month of February, 1930, in violation of the Wright Act (Stats. 1921, p. 79). Over the objection of petitioner he was tried for the offense in the Justice’s Court of El Monte Township, where he was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of $1,000 and for failure to make payment of the fine to suffer imprisonment in the county jail at the rate of one day for every dollar not paid, not to exceed 180 days. Thereafter petitioner appealed to the appellate department of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, which court affirmed his conviction. It is admitted that the crime was committed in the city of Beverly Hills and not within the township of El Monte.

Petitioner’s contention that under section 1425 of the Penal Code, as amended in 1929 (Stats. 1929, p. 861), the Justice’s Court of El Monte Township has no jurisdiction to try him for a crime committed in Beverly Hills must be sustained. Our Supreme Court, in the recent case of

Antilla

Justice’s Court of Big River Township, etc.,

209 Cal. 621 [290 Pac. 43], has determined that the jurisdiction of justices’ courts in criminal causes is now confined to the township wherein the offense was committed.

Respondent maintains that petitioner, by taking an appeal to the superior court, has waived his right to be released upon a writ of

habeas corpus.

In the instant case it does not appear whether the petitioner raised the question of jurisdiction in his appeal to the superior court. Assuming that such question was raised on the appeal, we are

[290]

nevertheless of the opinion that petitioner is not now precluded from here raising it. The Justice’s Court of El Monte Township at no time had jurisdiction of the offense. The act or pronouncement of that court was not legally efficacious for any purpose. Its act was a nullity; its judgment was void. It is well settled that

In Re Cohen

AI Brief

GATES, J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief