In Re Maldonado

[289]

KOFORD, P. J.

A writ of

habeas corpus,

issued by the supreme court, was returned in this court. The return of the sheriff of the county of Santa Clara shows that the prisoner, upon a plea of guilty of possession of intoxicating liquor, was sentenced by the city judge of the city of Sunnyvale to pay a fine of five hundred dollars or to be imprisoned for one day for each dollar of fine so imposed and not paid.

The judgment and sentence which might result in five hundred days’ imprisonment in case the five hundred dollar fine remains unpaid is not in excess of the jurisdiction of the city court. The judgment is for a fine and includes no direct imprisonment. Imprisonment is mentioned only as a means of enforcing the payment of the fine.

(In re Kennerly,

190 Cal. 774 [214 Pac. 857];

Jones

v.

Police Court,

86 Cal. App. 332 [260 Pac. 919].) The amount of the fine does not exceed the penalty for the first offense of possession prescribed by the National Prohibition Act, adopted as the law of this state by the Wright Act. (Sec. 29, National Prohibition Act [27 U. S. C. A., sec. 46].)

The return shows that the petitioner was duly arraigned and informed of his rights before he pleaded guilty. It is claimed by petitioner that he was not so informed of his legal rights. Affidavits showing that he was, and others showing that he was not, so informed have been tendered here and a motion has been made to reopen the ease after argument and submission for the purpose of taking evidence in this court upon this

habeas corpus

proceeding to determine whether the trial judge did or did not so inform the defendant of his legal rights at the time of his arraignment. In a felony case this point is properly raised by a motion to set aside the information.

(People