In Re Finley

In 1946 a jury found petitioner guilty of first degree robbery. The information alleged and petitioner admitted prior convictions of burglary in the State of Washington in 1932 and first degree robbery in California in 1938, with service of a term of imprisonment for each. The Los Angeles County Superior Court adjudged petitioner an habitual criminal and sentenced him to life imprisonment. (Pen. Code, § 644, subd. (a).) [1] Petitioner did not appeal. [2]

[1] In this habeas corpus proceeding petitioner attacks the determination of habitual criminality. He contends that the determination must fall because the 1932 Washington burglary conviction was not of an offense the minimum elements of which meet the California definition of burglary or of any other crime listed in section 644. Petitioner invokes propositions enunciated over vigorous dissents in In re McVickers (1946) 29 Cal.2d 264 , [ 176 P.2d 40 ], and In re Seeley (1946) 29 Cal.2d 294 [ 176 P.2d 24 ], that permit the habeas corpus petitioner who challenges an habitual criminal adjudication a wider scope of review than is available when the writ is sought to review a judgment of conviction of crime. The…