Torres v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
YEGAN, J.
The traditional function of a petition for writ of habeas corpus is to test the legality of actual governmental restraint of the person. Formerly, there was a requirement of actual physical confinement. Our California Supreme Court “relaxed” this rule and designed the concept of “constructive custody” to allow a parolee, who was not actually physically confined, to prosecute the writ. (In re Marzec (1945) 25 Cal.2d 794 [154 P.2d 873]; see 6 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Criminal Writs, § 16, pp. 619-621.) The “constructive custody” concept was not designed…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Blank v. KirwanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2005
- Zelig v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
- State v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
- Castaneda v. Department of Corrections & RehabilationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Ciria v. City and County of San FranciscoDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2024
- Ciria v. City and County of San FranciscoDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2024
- Law v. City of L.A. CA2/3California Court of Appeal · 2021
- Wheeler v. Sahni CA4/1California Court of Appeal · 2021
- Wheeler v. Sahni CA4/1California Court of Appeal · 2021