TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Babbick

In the Matter of the Application of Louis Babbick for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

In re Babbick, 255 P. 200 (Cal. Ct. App. 1927)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Court of Appeal · State Appellate Courts
Decided
April 2, 1927
Docket
No. 1389.
Judges
Tyler
Citations
255 P. 20082 Cal. App. 1721927 Cal. App. LEXIS 694

Opinion of the Court — Tyler

TYLER, P. J.

The petition recites that Louis Babbick is unlawfully detained in the state prison at San Quentin by the warden thereof. [1] Proceeding it alleges that on or *173 about May 21, 1926, the district attorney of Los Angeles County filed an information in the superior court of said county charging petitioner in one count thereof with a violation of the provisions of section 464 of the Penal Code (burglary with explosives) and in a second count with another felony, to wit, receiving stolen goods. It is then alleged that petitioner pleaded not guilty to the information and was placed on trial in said superior court, such trial commencing July 6, 1926, and ending July 9th of the same year; that the minutes of the proceedings of said court, had during such period, show that on motion of the district attorney count one of the information was dismissed, and that petitioner was thereafter found guilty under this count as charged; that thereafter, on July 13, 1926, petitioner was sentenced to be imprisoned in the state prison at San Quentin by reason of said conviction, and that he is now confined therein. It is claimed that the judgment of conviction is void for the reason that the minutes of the trial court show that count one of the information (the count which charges violation of section 464 of the Penal Code — burglary with explosives) was dismissed and the jury thereafter found petitioner guilty of such charge.

Claim is also made that the minutes of the court fail to show that the jury was sworn to try defendant. The return to the petition shows that the minutes of the trial court have been corrected to speak the truth. As corrected, it appears therefrom that it was the second count of the information that was dismissed and not the first. It further appears that the jury was duly sworn to try the case.

It follows that the writ should be and it is hereby discharged.

Knight, J., and Cashin, J., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1962: 119622026peak 1962 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Roberts200 Cal. App. 2d 95 (1962)

Most recent

  1. In re Roberts200 Cal. App. 2d 95 (1962)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list