Ex parte Williams

California Supreme Court Jun 4, 1891 No. No. 20794Published

Before: Harrison

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a prisoner is not entitled to discharge on habeas corpus when the record shows the court had jurisdiction to impose a ten-year sentence based on a conviction for burglary and admitted prior convictions. The judgment of conviction need not repeat prior record entries to be valid.

Issues

Whether a prisoner is entitled to discharge when a certified copy of the judgment supports a ten-year sentence despite conflicting documents.
Whether a judgment of conviction must repeat prior record entries to be valid.

Disposition. remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is thus seen that it appears upon the record of the case that the court did not exceed its jurisdiction in sentencing the prisoner to imprisonment in the state prison for the term of ten years.”

“It was not necessary that the entry of the judgment in the minutes should repeat the entries that had already been made in previous proceedings in the case.”

Synopsis

Habeas Corpus — Prisoner Held under Certified Copy of Judgment Entered —Judgment Filed with Different Recitals. — In proceedings upon habeas corpus for the release of a prisoner from the state prison, the court will not determine that the document under which the petitioner is detained, and which is certified by the clerk to be a true and correct copy of the judgment “ entered ” on the minutes of the court, is to be disregarded or held of no effect by the production of another document, with different recitals, certified by the same officer to be a full, true, and correct copy of the original minute entry of judgment filed ” in the clerk’s office.

Id. — Criminal Law — Material Parts of Judgment — Unnecessary Recitals. — The only material parts of a judgment in a criminal case are the statement of the offense for which the defendant has been convicted and the sentence of the court, and it is not necessary that anything which is contained in the papers which precede it should be repeated therein.

Id. — Burglary — Prior Convictions — Sentence. —In a prosecution for burglary in the second degree, under an information which also charges three prior convictions, when upon arraignment the defendant pleads not guilty to the crime charged, and admits the prior convictions, and is convicted of the crime of burglary in the second degree, the court does not exceed its jurisdiction in sentencing him to imprisonment in the state prison for the term of ten years allowed by law for a conviction of the second offense of burglary in the second degree.

Harrison, J. Application for discharge on habeas corpus.

In his return to the writ issued herein, the warden of the state prison produces as his authority for the detention of the petitioner a certified copy of the judgment of conviction, as follows: —

“ COMMITMENT.

“ In the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, State of California. Department Ho. 11.

“ Saturday, February 19, 1887.

“ Present: Hon. D. J. Toohey, J.

“ The People of the State of California v. Gus Williams, convicted of burglary in the second degree.

“ The district attorney, with the defendant and his counsel, Mr. O’Brien, came into court. The defendant was duly informed by the court of the information duly presented and filed on the twenty-sixth day of January, 1887, by the district attorney of the city and county of San Francisco, charging said defendant with the crime of burglary and three prior convictions; of his arraignment, and plea of not guilty as charged in said information; of his trial, and the verdict of the jury, on the sixteenth day of February, 1887, ‘ guilty of burglary in the second degree’; and defendant’s motion for a new trial having been denied by the court, and said prior convictions having been admitted by defendant, the defendant was then asked if he had any legal cause to show why judgment should not be pronounced against him, to which defendant replied he had none; and no sufficient [424]cause being shown or appearing to the court, thereupon the court renders its judgment, that whereas the said Gus Williams having been duly convicted in this court of the crime of burglary in the second degree, it is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the said Gus Williams be punished by imprisonment in the state prison of the state of California at San Quentin for the term often (10) years. The defendant was then remanded to the custody of the sheriff of the city and county, to be by him delivered into the custody of the proper officers of said state prison at San Quentin.

“ Office of the County Clerk City and County of San Francisco.

“I, William J. Buddick, county clerk of the city and county of San Francisco, and ex officio clerk of said superior court thereof, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and correct copy of a judgment entered on the minutes of said court in and for the city and county of San Francisco, state of California, in the above-entitled cause, as appears of record in my office.

Ex parte Williams

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief