Ex parte Soto
Before: Beatty, Garoutte, Haven
Synopsis
Jurisdiction of Recorders’ Courts — Imprisonment for Non-payment of Fine.—The recorders’ courts of cities organized under the general municipal corporation act are of the same character as police courts, and have the same jurisdiction; and section 1446 of the Penal Code, providing that “a judgment that the defendant pay a fine may also direct that he be imprisoned until the fine be satisfied, in proportion of one day’s imprisonment for every dollar of the fine, ” applies to recorders’ courts.
Id. —Criminal Law— Construction of Penal Code —Rate of Imprisonment— Excess of.— Section 1446 of the Penal Code merely prescribes a maximum of imprisonment at the rate specified, leaving the magistrate full discretion to fix any rate of imprisonment within that maximum that seems just, and a judgment of imprisonment until the fine be satisfied, at the rate of one day for each two dollars of the fine, is not erroneous. [PerBeatty, O. J.; Paterson, J., and McFarland, J., concurring.]
Id. — Erroneous Judgment — Habeas Corpus.—The judgment directing imprisonment until the fine be satisfied, at the rate of one day for each two dollars of the fine, although erroneous, was error in favor of the petitioner, and not wholly void, and does not, therefore, authorize the court to discharge the defendant imprisoned thereunder, upon a writ of habeas corpus. [Per De Haven, J.; Harrison, J., concurring.]
Opinion — Beatty
Beatty, C. J. The petitioner was convicted in the recorder’s court of the city of Pomona, upon a charge of violating a city ordinance, and sentenced to pay a fine of $150, and in default of such payment to be imprisoned in the city jail in the proportion of one day’s imprisonment for each two dollars of the unpaid portion of said fine.
The punishment prescribed by the city ordinance under which the petitioner was convicted is a fine not exceeding three hundred dollars, or imprisonment not exceeding three months, or both such fine and imprisonment. And it is claimed that a judgment imposing a fine only cannot be enforced by imprisonment, because the ordinance does not authorize imprisonment for that purpose.
But it is not necessary that such authority should be found in the ordinance if section 1446 of the Penal Code applies to cases tried in the recorders’ courts of cities of the fifth class.
By that section it is provided that “ a judgment that the defendant pay a fine may also direct that he be imprisoned until the fine be satisfied, in proportion of one day’s imprisonment for every dollar of the fine.”
It is contended, however, that since this provision [626]only applies to proceedings in justices’ and police courts, it confers no authority upon a recorder’s court.
But a recorder’s court is none the less a police court because it happens to have been called by another name. The character of a court is determined, not by its name, but by the nature of its jurisdiction and functions, in which respect the recorders’ courts of cities organized under the general municipal corporations act cannot be distinguished from other police courts.
Another ground upon which petitioner insists that his imprisonment is unlawful is, that if it be conceded that the recorder’s court of Pomona is a police court, and therefore authorized by section 1446 of the Penal Code to enforce payment of a fine by the alternative of imprisonment, this judgment is void as to the imprisonment which is prescribed, because, by the statute, the imprisonment must be at the rate of one day for every dollar of the fine, while this judgment only requires him to be imprisoned at the rate of one day for every two dollars of the fine.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)