TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Frankovitch

In the Matter of the Application of John Frankovitch for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

In re Frankovitch, 213 P. 39 (Cal. 1923)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 20, 1923
Docket
No. Crim. No. 2551.
Judges
THE COURT.
Citations
213 P. 39190 Cal. 4401923 Cal. LEXIS 549
Headnotes
[1] Criminal Law—Intoxicating Liquors — Wright Act — Judgment.—A judgment upon a conviction under the Wright Act that the defendant “pay a fine of $500 or be confined in the City Jail for the period of six months upon his failure to pay said fine,” is one imposing a sentence for six months, giving the party convicted the opportunity of escaping such punishment by the payment of a fine, and is valid.
Summary
APPLICATION for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to release one convicted of violation of the Wright Act. Writ 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

THE COURT.

Petitioner seeks the release of John Franhovitch on habeas corpus.

Frankovitch was convicted of selling liquor in violation of the Wright Act (Stats. 1921, p. 79), “and judgment was passed upon him to this effect: that he, the said John Frankovitch, was to pay a fine of $500.00 or be confined in the City Jail for the period of six months upon his failure to pay said fine.” On February 13, 1923, Frankovitch notified the trial court that he was unable to pay the fine or any part thereof, whereupon he was committed to the county jail for the period of six months. The Volstead Act ( 41 Stat. 305 ) provides that for the first offense the person who sells liquor shall be fined not more than a thousand dollars, or suffer imprisonment not exceeding six months. It is claimed that this provision, adopted by our Wright Act, does not justify the alternative judgment imposed upon Frankovitch, because such judgment, in effect, provides for imprisonment for the nonpayment of the fine.

[1]

On the other hand, we think the judgment, properly construed, is one imposing a sentence of imprisonment for six months, but gives the party convicted the opportunity of escaping such punishment by the payment of a fine. Having failed to pay the fine he is in no position to complain of the imprisonment.

Writ denied.

Wilbur, C. J., Waste, J., Myers, J., Lennon, J., Seawell, J., Kerrigan, J., and Lawlor, J., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

1924: 219242026peak 1924 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Pagni227 P. 972 (Cal. Ct. App. 1924)
  2. People v. Lamb227 P. 969 (Cal. Ct. App. 1924)

Most recent

  1. People v. Pagni227 P. 972 (Cal. Ct. App. 1924)
  2. People v. Lamb227 P. 969 (Cal. Ct. App. 1924)

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