In Re Collins (1908) · DecisionDepot

In Re Collins

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Jun 18, 1908 No. Crim. No. 91.Published

Before: Taggart

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A criminal judgment of imprisonment remains valid and enforceable even if the court improperly stays execution of the sentence, and the defendant may be lawfully committed to jail to serve the unexecuted sentence at a later date.

Issues

Whether a judgment of imprisonment becomes void if the court improperly withholds the commitment order.
Whether a defendant who has not served their sentence can be rearrested and committed to jail after the expiration of the original sentencing period.

Disposition. dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The time at which a judgment or sentence shall be carried into execution forms no part of the judgment of the court.”

“The judgment being valid and the sentence unserved, the commitment of the defendant in execution of the judgment was a legal and valid imprisonment.”

Synopsis

APPLICATION for writ of habeas corpus to W. V. Buckner, Sheriff of Kings County.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

TAGGART,

Habeas corpus.

On June 1, 1907, Herbert L. Collins pleaded guilty to a charge of vagrancy, waived time for sentence on the charge, and a judgment of imprisonment for the term of six months in the county jail was rendered and entered against him thereon. The judgment was. not executed at the time; the justice of the peace before whom the proceedings were had merely made an entry in his docket of “Commitment withheld,’’ and allowed the defendant to have his liberty.

On February 29, 1908, a commitment in execution of said judgment was issued by the justice, and by virtue thereof the sheriff took the defendant into custody and confined him in the county jail. It is from this confinement his release is. sought.

Application for such release was made to the superior court of Kings county, in which county defendant was confined, and after a hearing his application was denied. It was thereupon renewed in this court.

Both demurrer and answer to the petition are presented' upon the return. Only one issue of fact is raised by the latter and no evidence was offered by either party in relation thereto. The petition alleges that at the time the order was made withholding the commitment the defendant was. present in court, and ready and willing to surrender himself in execution of the judgment. The answer denies that, he

[369]

was ready or willing, but avers that he was present and consented to the making of the order.

It appears from the declarations of the courts in some jurisdictions that at common law it was competent for a court having the authority to imprison as a penalty for crime to make an order staying execution, and the power to do this is held to be inherent in the court. The practice was recognized and followed in England, where there was no appeal as a matter of right from a conviction for crime. For this reason, it is said to follow that, unless otherwise provided by statute, the power to stay execution exists in the court, and being exercised for the benefit of the defendant, will be presumed to have been done with his consent. (Weber v.

In Re Collins

AI Brief

Synopsis

TAGGART,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief