People v. Sherman

California Court of Appeal Nov 10, 1932 No. Docket No. 1679.Published

Before: Nourse

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a habeas corpus petitioner failed to meet the burden of proving that their imprisonment was unlawful, as the judgment commitments were valid on their face and the petitioner failed to demonstrate a lack of jurisdiction.

Issues

Whether judgment commitments must affirmatively show on their face that the defendant was present and asked for legal cause why sentence should not be pronounced.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to admit record evidence to prove jurisdiction when a judgment is collaterally attacked.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The statute (sec. 1207, Pen. Code) does not require the judgment to state either of those matters.”

“The burden was on petitioner to show want of jurisdiction in the judgments”

“since the judgment commitments are valid on the face, issued from a court having jurisdiction, and recite all that the code requires them to recite, they are the valid “warrant, or other written authority ...””

NOURSE, P. J.

This is an appeal by the State under section 1506 of the Penal Code, from an order of the superior court granting petitioner a writ of

habeas corpus.

Petitioner was convicted in the Superior Court in Los Angeles County upon two counts, each charging a felony— issuing checks without sufficient funds. Judgment was duly entered from which he appealed. The judgment was affirmed (100 Cal. App. 587 [280 Pac. 708]). None of the points raised in this proceeding was raised on that appeal. While confined in the state penitentiary the petitioner applied to the Superior Court of Marin County for a writ of

habeas corpus.

In his petition he alleged that the two judgment commitments under which he was held in the state prison are void because the judgments and the record concerning them failed to show that he was present when the judgments were pronounced, and also that they fail to show that he was asked whether he had legal cause why sentence should not be pronounced. The petitioner also alleged that

[419]

the trial court had not at any time asked him if he had such legal cause and did not, prior to the pronouncement of the judgments, inform him of the nature of the charges against him, or of his pleas, or of the verdicts. The petitioner personally verified the petition before a notary.

The evidence of the record of the proceedings in the trial court discloses without possibility of contradiction that the petitioner in the verification of this petition committed deliberate and wilful perjury. Though this is evident from the unimpeached record, the trial court in this proceeding refused to require the petitioner to prove those facts and refused to permit the State to controvert them upon the record.

The warden’s return consisted of the two judgment commitments, both of which were regular and disclosed that the prisoner was lawfully confined in the state penitentiary. When this return was filed the petition became

functus officio.

The petitioner might have made it a traverse to the return, but he did not do so. There was nothing before the court but the two judgment commitments issued from a court having jurisdiction of the person and of the subject matter. If jurisdiction was lacking in any respect it was incumbent upon petitioner to make his showing.

People v. Sherman

AI Brief

NOURSE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief