Skip to content

In re Stevenson

In the Matter of the Application of Robert Stevenson for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

In re Stevenson, 204 P. 216 (Cal. 1922)

Court: California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided: January 24, 1922
Docket: No. Crim. No. 2435.
Judges: Shaw
Citations: 204 P. 216187 Cal. 7731922 Cal. LEXIS 501

Cited by 11

Headnotes

[1] Criminal Law — Insanity Before Trial —■ Conviction and Imprisonment— Habeas Corpus.—A prisoner in a state prison is not entitled to Ms discharge on habeas corpus on the ground that prior to the time he was charged with the crime for which he was sentenced he had been committed to a state hospital as an insane person, and that he had never been lawfully discharged therefrom or formally restored to sanity. [2] Id.—Insanity—Jurisdiction—Collateral Attack.—When a person is charged with crime by information or indictment, if the defense of insanity exists, it must be presented to the court having jurisdiction of the cause, and the decision of that court is final against collateral attack. [3] Id.—Final Judgment—Insanity—Habeas Corpus.—After a conviction and sentence have become final, the question of insanity of "the defendant at the time of trial cannot be raised on habeas corpus. ■ 1. Sabeos corpus to secure release of one convicted while insane, note, L. B. A. 1918B, 81.

Summary

APPLICATION for a Writ of Habeas .Corpus to secure release from imprisonment- in state prison. ' Denied. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Shaw

SHAW, C. J.

The petitioner, Robert Stevenson, is imprisoned in the state prison at Represa, California, upon a charge of forgery under sentence for the period prescribed by law. He applies for a writ of' habeas corpus on the ground that prior to the time he was charged with the crime and sentenced to imprisonment he had been committed to the Norwalk state hospital as an insane person and that he had never been lawfully discharged from said hospital nor formally declared restored to sanity, and that until he was so restored or discharged from that custody he could not be prosecuted for felony.

*774 [1]

The petitioner is mistaken with regard to the effect of the commitment to a state hospital as an insane person.

[2]

When a person is charged with crime by information or indictment, if the defense of insanity exists, it must be presented to the court having jurisdiction of the cause, and the decision of that court is final against any collateral attack. If an appeal is taken the appellate court may consider the question. Its decision thereon, when it becomes final, if it affirms the judgment, puts the case beyond further consideration by any court. So far as the legality of the sentence for the crime charged is concerned, habeas corpus does not lie unless the lack of jurisdiction appears on the face of the record of conviction. If it does not so appear the jurisdiction will be presumed. These propositions also apply to the question whether the court had authority to proceed with the trial of the criminal charge upon the claim that he was at that time of unsound mind.

[3]

After the conviction and sentence have become final, the question of his insanity at the time of trial cannot be raised on habeas corpus.

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.

Lennon, J., Waste, J., Lawlor, J., Sloane, J., Wilbur J., and Shurtleff, J., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Ex Parte Gilbert1941 OK CR 35, 111 P.2d 205
In re Bell122 P.2d 22 (Cal. 1942)
In re Lindley177 P.2d 918 (Cal. 1947)
In re Seeley176 P.2d 24 (Cal. 1946)
Wojculewicz v. Cummings124 A.2d 886 (Conn. 1956)
In re Carmen313 P.2d 817 (Cal. 1957)

Most recent

In re Spinks253 Cal. App. 2d 748 (1967)
In re Carmen313 P.2d 817 (Cal. 1957)
Wojculewicz v. Cummings124 A.2d 886 (Conn. 1956)
Ex Parte Potts1949 OK CR 43, 205 P.2d 522
In re Lindley177 P.2d 918 (Cal. 1947)
In re Seeley176 P.2d 24 (Cal. 1946)

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.