In Re Ballas (1921) · DecisionDepot

In Re Ballas

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

California Court of Appeal Jun 8, 1921 No. Crim. No. 569.Published

Before: Hart

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court discharged the writ of habeas corpus, concluding that the petitioner's jurisdictional challenge should be resolved through his pending appeal rather than through a habeas proceeding.

Issues

Whether a writ of habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy to challenge the jurisdiction of the trial court when an appeal is already pending.
Whether the petitioner's release on bail affects the availability of habeas corpus relief.

Disposition. Writ discharged.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“we have reached the conclusion that, all the circumstances considered, the decision of the question on the appeal which is now pending is preferable to a decision thereof here.”

“Moreover, in discharging this writ, we do so knowing that the petitioner can in no way be prejudiced thereby, since he not only has an adequate remedy by appeal but is prosecuting that remedy.”

Synopsis

PROCEEDING on Habeas Corpus to secure release of petitioner on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

HART, J.

The petitioner was convicted in the superior court of the county of Yolo of the crime of forgery, the information (made a part of the petition for the writ) under which he was so convicted alleging that he raised a check issued to him by one Jessa Dunsmore on the First National Bank of Woodland, at Woodland, Yolo County, from the sum of sixty-five cents, for which the check was originally drawn, to the sum of sixty-five dollars. The information further alleged that the defendant passed said check on the Bank of Martinez, at Martinez, Contra Costa County, and that said bank cashed said check by paying to defendant the sum of sixty-five dollars, the ostensible value thereof.

This application of petitioner for a writ of

habeas corpus

is based upon the contention that the jurisdiction of the alleged offense is solely in the superior court of Contra Costa County, and that, therefore, his conviction of the offense in the superior court of Yolo County is

coram non judice

and void.

At the hearing of this petition, among other contentions advanced by the district attorney of Yolo County in resistance to the petition, it was maintained that the petition here would not lie for the reason that there was available to the petitioner an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law—that is, by appeal.

It was admitted by counsel for the petitioner at the hearing hereof that an appeal had been taken to this court in the latter’s behalf from the judgment of conviction of which

[111]

he here complains. It was further stated by counsel that, after the issuance of this writ by this court, and before the hearing of this application, the petitioner was admitted to bail by the superior court of Yolo County; that he furnished the required bail, was thereupon discharged from custody, and was, at the time of the hearing of this petition, at liberty; and, we may assume, that he is still at liberty.

[1]

The courts of this state have never made a practice of releasing persons convicted of felonies through the writ of

In Re Ballas

AI Brief

Synopsis

HART, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief