From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Application of Sanders

Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division One
Apr 4, 1921
52 Cal.App. 171 (Cal. Ct. App. 1921)

Opinion

Crim. No. 991.

April 4, 1921.

APPLICATION for Writ of Habeas Corpus to secure release of convict from state prison. Denied.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Russell Sanders, in pro. per., for Petitioner.


It appears that the applicant was delivered to the custody of the warden of the state prison at San Quentin on the sixth day of April, 1913, to serve a term of eight years, which period, he contends, will expire on the sixth day of April next. The sole ground for the application is that the petitioner has "been given to know and understand" that the warden at the state prison will not discharge him from custody and restore him to his liberty until a date some time later than the day upon which he contends he is lawfully entitled to be discharged.

[1] There are two reasons why we cannot entertain this petition at this time: First, we are not in a position to assume that the warden of the state prison will not act in accordance with law and discharge the petitioner, if it be, as alleged in his petition, that he is entitled to a discharge on the sixth day of April, 1921. The second is that the term for which the petitioner was sentenced has not actually expired, and until it has, the petitioner is not illegally detained. ( Ex parte Ross, 82 Cal. 109, [22 P. 1086].)

Application for the writ is denied.


Summaries of

In re Application of Sanders

Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division One
Apr 4, 1921
52 Cal.App. 171 (Cal. Ct. App. 1921)
Case details for

In re Application of Sanders

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Application of RUSSELL SANDERS for Writ of Habeas…

Court:Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division One

Date published: Apr 4, 1921

Citations

52 Cal.App. 171 (Cal. Ct. App. 1921)
198 P. 42

Citing Cases

State v. Coria

Under the common law, each partner "`is the ultimate owner of an undivided interest in all the partnership…

State v. Birch

Under the common law, each partner "`is the ultimate owner of an undivided interest in all the partnership…