gno.law

Ex parte Ah Sam

California Supreme Court · No. 20680 · 1890-04-30 · Published · 83 Cal. 620 · 24 P. 276 · 1890 Cal. LEXIS 739

Ex parte AH SAM, on Habeas Corpus

Proceeding
original
Outcome
writ denied — Writ denied.
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.

Petition for writ óf habeas corpus. The alleged illegality of the imprisonment in this case is, that the petitioner is held under a commitment issued upon a conviction of the crime of battery, and that the com mitment is void, because it does not appear therefrom that the petitioner was informed of all his rights, or that six hours elapsed after conviction and before sentence, or that time was waived.

There is no law that makes it necessary that these facts should be recited in the judgment or copied into the commitment.

Beside, if it is true that the defendant was not duly informed of his rights, or was sentenced too soon after conviction, these were mere errors, — not excesses of jurisdiction,— and were reviewable on appeal. They cannot be inquired into on habeas corpus.

Writ denied.

Cited by