Ex Parte Baldwin (1882) · DecisionDepot

Ex Parte Baldwin

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

California Supreme Court May 12, 1882 No. No. 10,733Published

Before: Thornton

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A justice's court judgment imposing imprisonment for nonpayment of a fine must strictly comply with the requirements of Section 1446 of the Penal Code, specifically providing for imprisonment in the proportion of one day for every dollar of the fine. Because the justice's judgment failed to include these prescribed elements, the portion of the sentence ordering imprisonment is void.

Issues

Whether a justice's court judgment imposing imprisonment for nonpayment of a fine is valid if it fails to specify the rate of imprisonment as required by Section 1446 of the Penal Code.

Disposition. Petitioner ordered to be set at liberty.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The judgment as rendered and entered was beyond the power vested in the justice to render, so far as it adjudged imprisonment; as to the imprisonment of the defendant it is void, and affords no authority to any officer to hold him in custody.”

“The petitioner is hereby ordered to be set at liberty.”

Synopsis

Judgment for Payment of Pine—Misdemeanor—Punishment—Sunday Law.—Upon a conviction for keeping open a place of business on Sunday, the judgment was “that the defendant pay a fine of fifty dollars, or be imprisoned in the County Jail * * * for the period of fifty days.” Held: As to the imprisonment of the defendant, the judgment is void, and affords no authority to any officer to hold him in custody.

Id.—Id.—The power of a Justice to impose imprisonment upon a defendant convicted of a misdemeanor, punishable only by fine is derived from § 1446, Penal Code, and can be exercised only in accordance with its provisions.

Id.—Cases Distinguished.—Exporte Kelly, 28 Cal. 414; Ex parte Chin Tan, 8 P. C. L. J. 1113, and Ex parte Ellis, 54 Id. 204, distinguished.

Thornton, J.: In this case the petitioner, A. J. Baldwin, applies to be released from imprisonment on a writ of habeas corpus.

The petitioner was convicted of a misdemeanor, punishable by fine only. Judgment was entered against him, as appears in the commitment, as follows:

“In the Justices’ Court of Branciforte Township, in the County of Santa Cruz, State of California. The people of the State of California:

“To the Sheriff of the County, of Santa Cruz, greeting:

“Whereas, A. J. Baldwin has, on the twenty-third day of December, 1881, been convicted before ine, L. Curtis, a Justice of the Peace of said Santa Cruz County, of the crime of misdemeanor, committed in said Santa Cruz County, on or about the fourth day of September, 1881:

“And whereas, upon such conviction I did consider and adjudge as follows, to wit:

“A judgment is entered against said defendant for the sum of fifty dollars, and it is ordered adjudged and decreed that the defendant pay a fine of fifty dollars or be imprisoned in the county jail of said county for the period of fifty days.

“I, L. Curtis, Justice of the Peace of said township and

[434]county, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the judgment now of record in my office in the above mentioned action.

“(Signed) L. Curtis,

“Justice of the Peace in and for said county.”

“And, whereas, the said A. J. Baldwin, although requested to pay said fine, has not paid the same:

“These are therefore to command you, the said Sheriff) to take and receive the said A. J. Baldwin into your custody, and imprison him in the county jail of said Santa Cruz county until he shall pay said fine, not exceeding fifty days.

“ Given under my hand, at the township of Branciforte, in the county of Santa Cruz, this fifth day of January, 1882.

“(Signed) L. Curtis,

“Justice of the Peace in and for said County.”

Ex Parte Baldwin

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief