Legal Opinion

In Re Peterson

California Supreme Court

Decided July 25, 1939No. Crim. 4217PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEdmonds, J.

Ordinarily, the purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to procure one’s discharge from custody alleged to be illegal. In the present case, the petitioner, an inmate of the state prison at San Quentin, is demanding the right to reject a parole granted to him by the board of prison terms and paroles under the indeterminate sentence law. (Sec. 1168, Pen. Code.) Although petitioner claims the further right to an absolute discharge from custody, logically, his primary contention would require an order remanding him to the custody of the warden for the remainder of the sentence originally imposed…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. United States v. WilsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1833
  2. Fuller v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1898
  3. In Re CollinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1908
  4. In re PattersonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1915
  5. State v. GoddardOregon Supreme Court · 1913

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. People v. JeffersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
  2. In Re SchoengarthCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
  3. In Re Pierce v. SmithWashington Supreme Court · 1948
  4. In Re TennerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  5. Standlee v. StateIdaho Supreme Court · 1975

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API