In Re Nachnaber

THOMPSON, J.

This is a petition for the writ of

habeas corpus

on behalf of Elsie Richmond and Anna Nachnaber, who on June 30, 1927, plead guilty to an information charging them with having committed a burglary on May 13, 1927. After the plea was entered and prior to July 14, 1927, they filed a written application for probation which was continued from time to time until September 14, 1927, on which day the court ordered “that the proceedings be suspended and that the defendants be granted probation for

[531]

a period of five years under the supervision of the probation officer and subject to the terms and conditions stated by the court, the first six months of said period, defendants shall be confined in the County Jail of the County of Los Angeles. ’ ’

Petitioner asserts that the portion of the order directing the confinement of the defendants in the county jail is void under the authority of

People

v.

Mendosa,

178 Cal. 509 [173 Pac. 998], and

In re Fink,

79 Cal. App. 659 [250 Pac. 715], for the reason that, under section 1203 of the Penal Code as it existed prior to the amendment of 1927 (Stats. 1927, p. 1493), the court had no authority upon granting probation to order the confinement of the defendants in the county jail or elsewhere.

By the amendment of 1927 trial judges were vested with broad discretionary powers, and had the offense been committed subsequent to the going into effect of the amendment, no question could be raised concerning the validity of the order. Inasmuch as the offense was committed, the plea was entered and application for probation was filed prior to the time the section as amended took effect, petitioner asserts that the court had no authority to order the confinement of the defendants upon granting probation for the reason that the amendment violates the constitutional guaranty against