In Re Brain
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtLangdon, P. J.
This matter comes before us upon an application for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner contends that his confinement in the state prison at San Quentin, California, is illegal because the judgment of conviction of the crime of burglary, by reason of which he is being restrained of Ms liberty, was based upon a plea of guilty and that no such plea was ever entered by said petitioner.
From the transcript of the proceedings in the trial court, it clearly appears that the petitioner did not plead guilty, but that his attorney stated to the court: “I believe the information has been read; if not,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- People v. McCallaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
- People v. TomskyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
- People v. MonaghanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- People v. GainesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1877
- Hawxhurst v. LanderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
3Cited by18 opinions
- In Re MartinezCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
- People v. SturdyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
- In Re EvansCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
- Dale v. City Court of MercedCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
- Jiménez Meléndez v. JonesSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1953
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.