Matter of Robinson (1903) · DecisionDepot

Matter of Robinson

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

California Supreme Court Feb 11, 1903 No. Crim. No. 989.Published

Before: Shaw

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the Act of 1895 divested inferior courts of the power to commit minors to the Preston School of Industry, limiting such authority exclusively to the superior court for cases within its jurisdiction. Consequently, a commitment of a minor to the school based solely on a conviction in a justice's court is void.

Issues

Whether a minor convicted of a crime in a justice's court can be committed to the Preston School of Industry by an order of the superior court under the Act of 1895.

Disposition. Petitioner released from custody.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The conclusion is, that in cases of minors convicted of crimes in the inferior courts, there no longer exists the power to commit to the Preston School of Industry for that cause alone”

Synopsis

Preston School oe Industry—Power of Superior Court—Habeas Corpus.—Under the act of March 26, 1895, (Stats. 1895, p. 122,) a commitment cannot be made by the superior court to the Preston School of Industry except of a minor convicted of felony in the superior court. A commitment thereto by the superior court of a minor convicted of a misdemeanor in a justice’s court is without authority of law; and such minor will he released upon habeas corpus.

SHAW, J.

This is an application for a writ of

habeas corpus

to obtain the release of Frank Peterson, a boy twelve years of age, in the custody of the sheriff of Alameda County, under a commitment issued from the superior court of that county to the Preston School of Industry. It appears from the petition and the return that the boy was arrested and brought before a justice’s court in that county upon a charge of having committed the larceny of three pigeons, in connection with three other boys, charged jointly with him; that upon arraignment Peterson pleaded guilty, and thereupon the justice suspended judgment and remanded him to the custody of the sheriff of Alameda County. Three days thereafter, one John H. Ravekes, who does not appear to have been a relative of the boy, filed in the superior court of Alameda County a petition, reciting that the boy had been found guilty of petit larceny, and alleging that the justice made an order finding him to be a fit subject for commitment to the Preston School of Industry, and suspended sentence upon the plea, in order that the boy might be examined and committed by the judge of the superior court of that county to the Preston School of Industry, and praying for a commitment accordingly. In fact, however, the justice did not make any order finding him to be a fit subject for admission to the Preston School of Industry. The record in the justice’s court merely shows that he suspended sentence upon the plea. Thereupon the boy was brought before the superior court and examined, and, after hearing the testimony of several witnesses, an order of commitment was issued, directing the sheriff to take the boy and deliver him to the custody of the

[493]

superintendent of the Preston School of Industry, there to be kept for the period of three years, or until legally discharged.

The question presented by the petition is whether or not, under the laws of this state, a minor under eighteen years of age, who has been found guilty of a crime by a justice of the peace, can be thereupon, for that cause alone, by an order of the superior court, committed to the Preston School of Industry.

The Preston School of Industry was established by the act of March 11, 1889, and the provisions concerning the commitments to the institution are contained in sections 15 and 16 of the act (Stats. 1889, p. 103). They are as follows:—

Related research

this effect in the case of the "Whittier State School there can he no question, and the practice throughout the state ever since has been in conformity with this purpose, so far as that school is concerned. There is nothing to indicate that it was intended to have a different effect with reference to the Preston School of Industry. The circumstances were manifestly the same, and the effect should be the same. Indeed, it may be said that there was greater reason for preventing minors convicted of petty offenses before the inferior courts from being committed to the Preston School of Industry than existed in reference to the Whittier State School; for, under the act relating to the Whittier State School, boys who were not guilty of any crime, but were simply unruly and incorrigible, could be committed by the superior court j whereas in the case of the Preston School of Industry, commitments were limited to those guilty of crime, and it was evident that it was expected that they would be largely composed of those guilty of felony. It is not good policy to allow minors who have simply become unruly and incorrigible, or who have committed some petty misdemeanor, to be associated with those who have advanced so far as to become felons. No better school could be devised for the purpose of inculcating habits and thoughts of crime. The present case furnishes a good illustration of the evil effects of such a policy. This boy, twelve years of age, with three others, committed the heinous offense of stealing three pigeons, and for this infraction of the law he is to be practically confined for three years in the institution at Preston, undergoing a course of instruction in industry in association with a lot of older boys convicted of felony. It is not to be presumed that the legislature intended to continue such a system, but rather that the purpose was thereafter to confine the power to commit persons to the Preston School of Industry to those who . should be charged in the superior court, either with some crime amounting to a felony or with the commission of some misdemeanor of which that court has jurisdiction, either original or upon appeal.

AI Brief

Synopsis

SHAW, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief