TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ex parte Morrison

Ex parte F. P. MORRISON, on Habeas Corpus

Ex parte Morrison, 25 P. 1064 (Cal. 1891)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 24, 1891
Docket
No. 20802
Judges
Haven
Citations
25 P. 106488 Cal. 1121891 Cal. LEXIS 657
Syllabus
Habeas Corpus — Vagrancy—Regularity of Judgment — Constitutional Law. — A person convicted of vagrancy by a judgment valid upon its face, but which does not show upon which clause of section 647 of the Penal Code the conviction was had, will not be presumed, on an application to be discharged on habeas corpus, to have been convicted under the first clause of that section; and if the complaint upon which the judgment was rendered is not in the record, the court will not pass upon the question whether the first clause of that section is constitutional.
Summary
Application to the Supreme Court for discharge upon writ of habeas corpus. 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 — Haven

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

De Haven, J.

This is a proceeding upon habeas corpus. It appears from the return to the writ that F. P. Morrison, the person in whose behalf the writ was issued, is detained by the superintendent of the house of correction of the city and county of San Francisco under and by virtue of a judgment of the police court of said city and county convicting the said Morrison of the crime of vagrancy, and adjudging that he be imprisoned therefor in said house of correction for the period of ninety days. The judgment was rendered February 5, 1891. The judgment appears to be regular on its face, and it does not appear therefrom under which clause of section 647 of the Penal Code said Morrison was convicted. It was argued that the first clause of this section is unconstitutional; but we cannot assume, for the purpose of passing on this question, or of discharging the prisoner, that this is the particular clause under which the conviction was had. The complaint upon which the judgment was rendered is not in this record. We cannot say, from the record before us, that the judgment is void. The said Morrison is remanded, and the writ discharged.

Beatty, C. J., McFarland, J., Garoutte, J., Paterson, J., Harrison, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

1942: 12017: 119422026peak 1942 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Martinez407 P.3d 1 (Cal. 2017)
  2. In re Bell122 P.2d 22 (Cal. 1942)

Most recent

  1. In re Martinez407 P.3d 1 (Cal. 2017)
  2. In re Bell122 P.2d 22 (Cal. 1942)

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