In re Latourell
In the Matter of the Application of RICHARD LATOURELL for a Writ of 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
THE COURT.
An application for a writ of habeas cor pus. The petitioner is charged by a complaint filed in the Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco with a misdemeanor, to wit: vagrancy. The form of the complaint is not questioned, but section 647 of the Penal Code defining vagrancy, by its terms, is not operative against a “California Indian”, and it is alleged in the petition for this writ that petitioner “is an Indian of the Yakima Tribe, of Yakima, Washington”. He contends, therefore, that the municipal court is without jurisdiction to try him for the offense of vagrancy. Admittedly, however, the municipal court has jurisdiction in vagrancy cases, and therefore the question of whether or not petitioner is of the race which exempts him from the operation of the vagrancy law manifestly is one of fact which must be determined upon trial of the action. It is not a proper subject of inquiry before this court in a proceeding on habeas corpus. The application is therefore denied.