TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ex parte Miller

Ex parte J. H. MILLER, on Habeas Corpus

Ex parte Miller, 22 P. 1113 (Cal. 1890)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 2, 1890
Docket
No. 20606
Judges
Works
Citations
22 P. 111382 Cal. 4541890 Cal. LEXIS 584
Headnotes
Habeas Corpus — Conviction for Misdemeanor — Denial of Jury Trial —Waiver—Review of Errors. — A prisoner will not "be discharged upon habeas corpus because a jury trial was denied in the justice’s court in which he was convicted of a misdemeanor. When the offense charged is not a felony, a jury may be waived, and even if erroneously denied, the error cannot be reached by habeas corpus, there being a valid commitment by a court having jurisdiction of the subject-matter, and of the party. Id. — Imprisonment for Pine — Violation of County Ordinance not Providing Imprisonment. — A prisoner will not be discharged on habeas corpus because held under a judgment of conviction providing the alternative of imprisonment for non-payment of a fine for misdemeanor in violating a county ordinance, which did not provide for such imprisonment. The code provides for such imprisonment as a means of enforcing a fine for misdemeanor.
Summary
Application for a writ of habeas corpus. The facts stated are 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 — Works

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Works, J.

This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus. The principal ground of the application is, that the petitioner, upon a trial for a violation of an ordinance of the board of supervisors of Sutter County, was by the justice’s court denied a jury, and upon a trial by the justice convicted and fined one hundred dollars. The offense charged was not a felony, and a jury might have been waived. The return of the officer to the alternative writ shows a valid commitment by a court having jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the party. If a jury trial was denied, it was a mere error which could not be reached by a writ of habeas corpus. (Ex parte McCullough, 35 Cal. 97 ; 4 Crim. Law Mag. 789 et seq.; Ex parte Brandon, 45 Ark. 143 ; Tormey v. Barr, 75 Iowa, 758 ; Zelle v. McHenry, 51 Iowa, 572 ; Kelly v. People, 115 Ill. 583 ; 56 Am. Rep. 184 .)

It is further contended that the judgment of the justice’s court was void, because it provided for the alternative of imprisonment in the county jail in case the fine assessed was not paid. This is placed on the ground that the ordinance under which the petitioner was prosecuted did not provide for such imprisonment. But the offense for which the petitioner was convicted was a misdemeanor, and the code provides for such imprisonment as a means of enforcing the fine. (Pen. Code, secs. 1446, 1456; Ex parte Ellis, 54 Cal. 204 ; Ex parte Chin Yan, 60 Cal. 78 ; Ex parte Baldwin, 60 Cal. 432 .)

The judgment was in proper form and valid.

Writ denied, and prisoner remanded to the custody of the sheriff of Sutter County.

Thornton, J., Sharpstein, J., Paterson, J., Fox, J., McFarland, J., and Beatty, C. J., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 23 cases

View all citing references →
1892: 11895: 11901: 11904: 11907: 11908: 21909: 11918: 11921: 11923: 11924: 21931: 11932: 21939: 11945: 11950: 11954: 31958: 118922026peak 1954 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Goodman v. Superior Court96 P. 395 (Cal. Ct. App. 1908)
  2. In re Jorge10 Alaska 633 (D. Alaska 1945)
  3. United States v. Oates61 F.2d 536 (9th Cir. 1932)
  4. In re Fife42 P. 299 (Cal. 1895)
  5. Ex Parte Plaistridge1918 OK 352, 173 P. 646
  6. Oswald v. Martin222 P.2d 632 (Ariz. 1950)

Most recent

  1. In re Banschbach323 P.2d 1112 (Mont. 1958)
  2. Carrion v. Gonzalez125 F. Supp. 819 (D.P.R. 1954)
  3. People v. Figueroa77 P.R. 175 (1954)
  4. Pueblo v. Figueroa77 P.R. Dec. 188 (1954)
  5. Oswald v. Martin222 P.2d 632 (Ariz. 1950)
  6. In re Jorge10 Alaska 633 (D. Alaska 1945)

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 8

DepthCaseCited by
Kelly v. People, 4 N.E. 644 (Ill. 1886) 33
Ex parte McCullough, 35 Cal. 97 (1868) 21
Zelle v. McHenry, 2 N.W. 264 (Iowa 1879) 17
Ex parte Chin Yan, 60 Cal. 78 (1882) 16
Turney v. Barr, 38 N.W. 550 (Iowa 1888) 14
Ex parte Ellis, 54 Cal. 204 (1880) 10
Ex Parte Baldwin, 60 Cal. 432 (1882) 10
Chiles v. State, 45 Ark. 143 (1885) 7

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