In Re Heinze

Good Law
116 Cal. App. 286·1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 299·2 P.2d 561
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 25, 1931Docket No. 1172.California860 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Thompson, J.

This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

It is contended the order of a magistrate holding the petitioner for trial in the superior court upon a charge of attempting to extort money contrary to the provisions of section 524 of the Penal Code is void for failure to have established at the preliminary examination the corpus delicti. It is asserted the record fails to show probable cause to believe the petitioner is guilty of the offense charged.

The petitioner is held by the sheriff of San Joaquin County' pursuant to a commitment duly issued by a justice of the peace of Stockton township, based upon an order previously made by him holding the petitioner for trial in the superior court upon the charge of attempting to extort money contrary to the provisions of section 524 of the Penal Code. Upon proceedings duly had in the justice’s court, an order of the above-named magistrate was made July 8, 1931, binding the petitioner over for trial for the .offense last mentioned. The petitioner was thereupon held a prisoner upon said charge pending the trial thereof. On July 17, 1931, upon a previous petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the Superior Court of San Joaquin County…

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.