In re Pratt
In re JAKE W. PRATT on Habeas Corpus
- Area
- other
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
Opinion THE COURT.
We treat the petition in the above-entitled proceeding as an application to recall the remittitur in People v. Pratt, 2 Crim. 9718. The proceeding is transferred to the Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Four, with directions to recall its remittitur, vacate its judgment to the .extent it affirms the judgment in Los Angeles County Superior Court case No. 238805, and redetermine petitioner’s appeal therein in light of People v. Daniels, 71 Cal.2d 1119 [80 Cal.Rptr. 897, 459 P.2d 225], People v. Mutch, 4 Cal.3d 389 [93 Cal.Rptr. 721, 482 P.2d 633], and People v. Timmons, 4 Cal.3d 411 [93 Cal.Rptr. 736, 482 P.2d 648]. To facilitate the proper disposition of the appeal we vacate so much of our order in In re Pratt, 66 Cal.2d 154 [56 Cal.Rptr. 895, 424 P.2d 335], as sets aside petitioner’s robbery sentence.
Sullivan, J., did not participate.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Mutch Crim. 14182 · 1971-03-24
- People v. Timmons Crim. 14188 · 1971-03-24
- People v. Daniels Crim. 10999 · 1969-10-02
- In Re Pratt Crim. 10075 · 1967-03-10
Cited by
- People v. Davis A039921 · 1989-06-07
- People v. Greene Crim. 10427 · 1973-10-15
- People v. DeVaney 10863 · 1973-07-25
- People v. DeVaney Crim. No. 10863 · 1973-07-25