Ex parte Mitchell
Ex parte ROBERT MITCHELL, on Habeas Corpus
- Area
- criminal
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.
1. The punishment authorized by section 245, Penal Code, is not excessive, cruel, or unusual within the meaning of section 6, article 1, of the constitution.
2. People v. Turner, 65 Cal. 540, to which we adhere, disposes of the second point made for petitioner.
*33. The entire judgment is not void. . That portion of it providing for imprisonment as a means of enforcing the payment of the fine is separable from the rest. The sentence to imprisonment as a punishment is in force, and the petitioner cannot now be discharged, whatever may hereafter be his rights regarding the order of imprisonment as to the fine. Whether he will be entitled to a discharge on the expiration of the two years, we indicate no opinion.
The petitioner is remanded, and the writ discharged.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Turner No. 10,968 · 1884-08-27
Cited by
- People v. Wingo Crim. 17942 · 1975-05-09
- People v. Anderson Crim. 13617 · 1972-02-18
- In Re Johnson Crim. No. 69. · 1907-11-02
- In Re Sullivan Crim. No. 196. · 1906-03-01