gno.law

In Re Kavanaugh

California Supreme Court · Crim. No. 2241. · 1919-03-28 · Published · 179 P. 533 · 180 Cal. 181 · 1919 Cal. LEXIS 461

In the Matter of the Petition of Mae Kavanaugh for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Area
other
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

[1] The information in the superior court upon which the judgment against petitioner is based clearly attempted to charge the felony defined by section 476a of the Penal Code. Whether the specific facts alleged as constituting the particular offense failed to sufficiently show the public offense attempted to be charged is a question which cannot be considered on habeas corpus under the well-settled rule of this jurisdiction. (Matter of Ruef, 150 Cal. 665, [89 P. 605]; see, also, Ex parte Greenall, 153 Cal. 770, [96 P. 804].)

As to the second point, in view of the facts and exhibits shown by the petition, it must be held that the superior court did vacate the order suspending the execution of the judgment.

The application for a writ of habeas corpus was denied for these reasons.

Shaw, J., Wilbur, J., Lennon, J., Olney, J., Lawlor, J., Melvin, J., and Angellotti, C. J., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by