In re Tartar

California Court of Appeal · Crim. No. 1345 · 1934-10-13 · Published · 1 Cal. App. 2d 400 · 36 P.2d 419 · 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 1285

In the Matter of the Application of GEORGE P. TARTAR for a Writ of 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.

Petitioner was on January 2, 1930, convicted of the crime of burglary in the second degree. The information also charged petitioner with having suffered two prior convictions. Following his conviction of the crime of burglary as above stated he was adjudged to be an habitual criminal and committed to the state prison at Folsom. The information failed to allege petitioner had served any term for the prior convictions, which is pre*401requisite to holding petitioner to be an habitual criminal. (People v. Dawson, 210 Cal. 366 [292 Pac. 267].)

However, the petition is premature, for the punishment of burglary of the second degree is one year to fifteen years (Pen. Code, see. 461), and it is apparent petitioner has not yet served the term for which he was legally committed.

Writ denied.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Dawson Docket No. Crim. 3345. · 1930-09-30

Cited by

In Re Tartar Crim. 6407 · 1959-05-29
People v. Linden Crim. 6191 · 1959-04-22
In Re Seeley Crim. 4654 · 1946-12-03
In Re Tartar Crim. No. 1345 · 1934-10-13