In Re Haines

Good Law
1924 Cal. App. LEXIS 349·68 Cal. App. 522·229 P. 984
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 3, 1924Crim. No. 810.California2,282 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hart, J.

The petitioner claims that he is being unlawfully restrained of his personal liberty by the sheriff of Shasta County, and has petitioned this court for his enlargement through the writ of habeas corpus. The ground upon which he seeks release from his alleged unlawful imprison ment is that there is no such crime known to our law as that for which he is so being held.

It appears from the petition that the prisoner, at the time of the commission of the crime for which the sheriff is now holding him, was serving a sentence in the county jail of Shasta County for the crime of malicious mischief, a misdemeanor, and that while undergoing said sentence, or before the expiration of his term thereof, he escaped from the custody of the sheriff, was subsequently apprehended and returned to the county jail and thereupon charged with and preliminarily examined and held for trial by a magistrate for the crime of escaping from said jail. This charge was founded on section 107 of the Penal Code, as the same was amended by the legislature of 1923. (Stats. 1923, p. 270.)

Section 107, as it originally read, provided: “Every person confined in any other prison than the state prison, who escapes or…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.