In Re Northcott

California Court of Appeal Feb 14, 1925 No. Docket No. 1246.Published

Before: Knight

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court denied the petition for habeas corpus, ruling that alleged procedural errors during trial must be raised on appeal, that a judgment of conviction is not dependent on preliminary examination proceedings, and that the indeterminate sentence law is constitutional.

Issues

Whether a failure to follow Penal Code section 1164 renders a judgment void and subject to collateral attack via habeas corpus.
Whether a judgment of conviction is void if the committing magistrate lacked probable cause.
Whether the indeterminate sentence law violates the equal protection clauses of the federal and state constitutions.

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A writ of habeas corpus may not be invoked to inquire into mere errors committed in the exercise of jurisdiction.”

“Said judgment is not related to, nor is it dependent upon, the order of the committing magistrate holding the defendant to answer for trial”

“the indeterminate sentence law was constitutional, and in so holding declared that its provisions repealed by implication the provisions of said section 1588”

KNIGHT, J.

This is an application for a writ of

habeas corpus.

The petitioner is confined in the California state prison at San Quentin under an indeterminate sentence for the crime of murder in the second degree, after having been tried and convicted by a jury in the superior court of San Mateo County. An appeal was taken from the judgment of conviction and the order denying a motion for a new trial, in which all errors alleged to have been committed prior thereto were reviewed, and on February 2, 1920, said judgment and order were duly affirmed.

(People

Northcott,

45 Cal. App. 706 [189 Pac. 704].)

The petitioner now alleges in this application that the trial court, in receiving the verdict, failed to follow the procedure prescribed by section 1164 of the Penal Code, and that, therefore, the judgment is void. Assuming such allegation to be true, and that the requirements of said section were not complied with, such omission did not divest

[283]

the court of jurisdiction. It amounted to nothing more than án error committed in the exercise of jurisdiction, which error should have been presented for review upon the appeal from the judgment.

A writ of

habeas corpus

may not be invoked to inquire into mere errors committed in the exercise of jurisdiction.

(Ex parte Philbrook,

47 Cal. App. 678 [191 Pac. 77].) Furthermore, a judgment of conviction, after affirmance on appeal, cannot be collaterally attacked on

habeas corpus,

for grounds which were review able on that appeal even though they were not mentioned in the decision thereof.

(Matter of Application of Smith, 161

In Re Northcott

AI Brief

KNIGHT, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief