In Re Boatwright

California Court of Appeal Dec 28, 1931 No. Docket No. 1638.Published

Before: Knight

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a conviction for petty theft following prior felony convictions constitutes a felony under the Habitual Criminal Act, mandating a life sentence without parole, and that such a penalty is constitutional.

Issues

Whether a conviction for petty theft following prior felony convictions qualifies as a felony under the Habitual Criminal Act.
Whether the Habitual Criminal Act's mandatory life sentence for such offenses is constitutional.
Whether the petitioner's sentence is valid despite claims that the trial court did not contemplate a life term.

Disposition. dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“to charge a person with petit larceny and previous conviction of felony is to charge such person with a felony.”

“judicial interference with legislative act relating to the severity of punishment is warranted only where the nature and extent of the punishment invades a constitutional right”

“the writ is discharged and the proceeding dismissed.”

KNIGHT, J.

The petitioner, James Boatwright, is a prisoner in the state prison at San Quentin and seeks to be discharged therefrom on

habeas corpus.

Pie was charged

[422]

in the trial court with petty theft and four prior convictions of felony. He admitted the prior convictions, pleaded not guilty to the charge of petty theft and after trial by jury was found guilty. The judgment of sentence was that he be imprisoned in the state prison at San Quentin until legally discharged. The alleged theft was committed on September 6, 1927, petitioner was sentenced on November 5, 1927, and so far as the record shows he took no appeal from the judgment of conviction. In support of his application he contends that the maximum penalty imposed by law for the commission of the crime for which he' was committed to prison is five years imprisonment (Pen. Code, see. 667), and that after deducting thereform the credits allowed by the prison board he has served more than the full period of a five-year sentence, and therefore is entitled to immediate discharge. In opposition to the application it is claimed that by virtue of the prior convictions of felony petitioner’s case falls within the so-called Habitual Criminal Act (Pen. Code, sec. 644), and that therefore he must serve a life term without being eligible to parole.

Section 667, relied upon by petitioner, as re-enacted in 1909 (Stats. 1909, p. 364) and in force in 1927, provided that every person convicted of petty theft, after having been convicted of any offense punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for which he served a term in a penal institution, was punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding five years, and was subject to parole by the state board of prison directors, under the restrictions provided by law for the parole of first-term prisoners, any act to the contrary notwithstanding. The 1927 amendment to the Plabitual Criminal Act (Stats. 1927, p. 1066, sec. 644), which became operative about six weeks prior to the date on which petitioner is alleged to have committed the theft, contained the following provisions:

“

. . . Every person convicted in this state of any felony' who shall have been previously three times convicted, either in this state or elsewhere, of any felony, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than life and shall not be eligible to parole. ...”

In Re Boatwright

AI Brief

KNIGHT, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief