In Re Kinney

Good Law
1925 Cal. App. LEXIS 583·71 Cal. App. 490·235 P. 460
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 3, 1925Docket No. 1253.California424 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Knight, J.

Application for a writ of habeas corpus.

The petitioner, Myrtle Kinney, was accused, with one George Hart, in San Diego County, of seven separate acts of burglary and seven separate charges of receiving stolen goods, upon which they were jointly tried and convicted. The stolen goods alleged to have been wrongfully received by defendants were the fruits of the burglaries set forth in the information. Upon motion of defendants the trial court granted a new trial as to the charges of receiving stolen goods, denied a new trial as to the charges of burglary, and thereupon sentenced the defendants to indeterminate sentences on each conviction of burglary. Appeals from said convictions were announced by the defendants but not perfected.

It is alleged in the petition for the issuance of the writ that the judgment entered in said action was and is void for the following reasons: First, that two separate felony charges are based upon one alleged act, and that, therefore, petitioner’s conviction thereon was “in contravention of article I, section 13, of the Constitution of the State of California, wherein it is provided that ‘no person shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same act’…

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.