gno.law

In Re Ajuria

California Supreme Court · Crim. No. 2472. · 1922-05-22 · Published · 207 P. 516 · 188 Cal. 799 · 1922 Cal. LEXIS 487

In the Matter of the Application of LUCIO AJURIA Et Al., for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

Area
criminal
Panel
The Court (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

THE COURT.

The petitioners are imprisoned after conviction upon a charge of violating an ordinance of the city of Marysville declaring it unlawful for any person to have in his possession any intoxicating liquors.

The complaint on which they were convicted is not presented to us and we must therefore presume that it sufficiently charges the offense. We have, heretofore, had similar attacks made upon local ordinances of this character and our decisions therein are against the petitioners on all the points presented in this case with relation to the *800 validity of this ordinance. (See In re Polizzotto, ante, p. 410 [205 Pac. 676];

People v. Collins, 54 Cal. App. 531 [202 Pac. 344];

People v. Capelli, 55 Cal. App. 461 [203 Pac. 837];

Ex parte Kinney, 53 Cal. App. 792 [200 Pac. 967], and Ex parte Volpi, 53 Cal. App. 229 [199 Pac. 1090].)

The claim that the judgment is void because the intoxicating liquor was found on the premises without previously having obtained a search-warrant for the discovery thereof is answered by the decision in People v. Mayen, ante, p. 237 [205 Pac. 435], On the authority of these cases the petition is denied.

Shaw, C. J., Wilbur, J., Shurtleff, J., Lawlor, J., Sloane, J., and Lennon, J., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by