People v. Superior Court

By a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on October 17, 1951, Caryl Chessman, an inmate of San Quentin State Prison whose appeal from 17 judgments of conviction was pending, sought relief from allegedly illegal conditions of imprisonment which assertedly interfered with his representation of himself. 1 On December 18, 1951, this court affirmed the judgments, two of which imposed the death penalty. (People v. Chessman, 38 Cal.2d 166 [ 238 P.2d 1001 ].) The subject matter of Chessman’s petition for habeas corpus has no relevancy whatsoever to the proceedings at the trial which resulted in his conviction or to the legality of the judgments which were imposed and affirmed and under which he is now confined and awaiting execution; it relates solely *4 to a matter of prison administration. After the judgments had been affirmed the superior court, in the habeas corpus proceeding, ordered that Chessman “continue to be allowed the free exercise” of asserted rights in connection with his representation of himself. The attorney general filed with the District Court of Appeal a notice of appeal from the superior court order; also, uncertain whether the People could appeal from the…

I dissent.

I see no occasion for reading words into section 1506 of the Penal Code which makes appealable only an order of the *11 superior court which discharges petitioner from custody. It has been-held repeatedly that in only those situations expressly covered by section 1506 was an order in habeas corpus proceedings appealable because the rule prior to its enactment had been that the state could not appeal. (In re Alpine, 203 Cal. 731 [ 265 P. 947 , 58 A.L.R. 1500 ]; In re Bruegger, 204 Cal. 169 [267 P. 101]; Thuesen v. Superior Court, 215 Cal. 572 [ 12 P.2d 8 ]; Loustalot v. Superior Court, 30 Cal.2d 905 [ 186 P.2d 673 ]; In re Merwin, 108 Cal.App. 31 [ 290 P. 1076 ]; In re Dutton, 119 Cal.App. 447 [ 6 P.2d 558 ].) The Bruegger case states the reason for the rule: “The primary purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to provide a summary and, speedy mode of inquiring into the legality of imprisonment or restraint . . . the writ would be deprived of its effect if an order made pursuant to the inquiry can be suspended, and the person or parties affected can be compelled to undergo the delay attendant upon an appeal to the higher court.” (Emphasis added; In re Bruegger, supra,…