In re Harrington

ASHBHRN, J. Appeal by the People of the State of California from an order discharging upon writ of habeas corpus a defendant who had been convicted of a misdemeanor. The appeal is taken pursuant to section 1506, Penal Code.1

[453]On November 9, 1956, the defendant-petitioner Voncele Olive Harrington was sentenced to a term of one year in the county jail for violation of section 502, Vehicle Code, a misdemeanor,—driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. This being a first offense so far as officially appears, it is conceded by appellant that the sentence was effective for a term of six months only. Having been delivered into the custody of the sheriff on the day of sentence, November 9, 1956, the term would have expired on May 8, 1957, except as affected by credits for “good time” and “work time.”

On March 19, 1957, defendant presented to the appellate department of the Los Angeles superior court a petition for habeas corpus, alleging: ‘ ‘ That during the term of your petitioner’s said confinement, and in accordance with the laws, rules and regulations applicable thereto, your petitioner has earned thirty days good time and 21 days work time, all of which would entitle petitioner to her release as of 9:00 A. it., on the 19th day of March, 1957.” Upon the return day, it having been stipulated that the petition should stand as a traverse to the return, there was presented on behalf of petitioner and received in evidence by consent of the People, a certificate of the county Sheriff, saying: “We further certify that said Voncele O. Harrington has earned 30 days of good time and 21 days of work time based upon the maximum sentence of six months and if that sentence were for a period of six months would be eligible for release March 19, 1957 at 9:00 a. m.” This certificate was also signed by the three members of the board of parole commissioners. It was further stipulated that if the people whose names appear on that certificate were called as witnesses “they would so testify.” Also, “that the conduct of the prisoner has been such that she has earned all the good time she could earn up to the present time, and all the work time she could earn up to the present time.” The court upheld petitioner’s contention that she was entitled to release on March 19, 1957, “on account of good time and work time credits which she has earned.” Her release was actually effected on March 25th.

Appellant contends that the credits thus approved by the lower court were in excess of the total allowed by law and that the order releasing the petitioner was therefore erroneous. Respondent has filed no brief and made no other appearance in this court. The gist of appellant’s main argument is that 40 days was the maximum aggregate of credits authorized by