In Re Tom Wong

California Court of Appeal Apr 19, 1932 No. Docket No. 1649.Published

Before: Sturtevant

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a criminal complaint which defectively pleads the elements of a statutory offense is not void and does not entitle a petitioner to discharge via habeas corpus if it purports to state a public offense.

Issues

Whether the complaint failed to state a cause of action for vagrancy.
Whether the judgment of conviction was void due to defects in the complaint or terminology.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to discharge via habeas corpus.

Disposition. Writ discharged and prisoner remanded.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“it must be conceded that the complaint purported at least to state a public offense.”

“Comparing the pleading with the statute we think it is very clear that the pleading purported to plead the offense defined in the statute.”

[673]

STURTEVANT, J.

A purported complaint was filed in the Municipal Court of San Francisco against the petitioner; he was arrested and brought before the court; a trial was had and he was found guilty and sentenced to serve a term in the county jail. Later he applied to the superior court for a writ of

habeas corpus

and the writ was denied. Being dissatisfied he has applied to this court for a writ. The sheriff has made a return setting up a copy of the judgment of conviction as being his authority for holding the petitioner in his custody. By the stipulation of the. parties the return is allowed to stand as a traverse to the petition of the petitioner.

The petitioner claims (1) the complaint against him fails to state a cause of action; (2) that the judgment is void; and (3) that the process under which he is imprisoned is defective in a matter of substance.

The first part of the complaint is as follows: “Personally appears before me this 9th day of December A. D. 1931, J. P. O’Connor, who, on oath, makes complaint and deposes and says, that -on the 8th day of December A. D. 1931, and from said-- day of-A. D. 193—•, up to and on the-day of-A.. D. 193—■, in the city and county of San Francisco, state of California, the crime of misdemeanor, towit: vagrancy, was committed, towit: by Tom Wong who then and there, and from said - day of-A. D. 193—, not being a California Indian, without visible means of living, and having the physical ability to work, did not seek employment nor labor when employment was offered him. ...” Paraphrased the foregoing passage has the same meaning as though it were worded as follows: “Personally appears before me this 9th day of December, A. D. 1931, J. P. O’Connor, who, on oath, makes complaint and deposes and says, that on the 8th day of December, A. D. 1931, and from a date not stated up to and on a date not stated, in the city and county of San Francisco, state of California, the crime of misdemeanor, to-wit: the act of being a vagrant, was committed, to-wit: by Tom Wong who then and there, and from said date not stated up to and on a date not stated, not being a California Indian, without visible means of living, and having the physical

[674]

In Re Tom Wong

AI Brief

STURTEVANT, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief