In Re Harincar
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtSchauer, J.
By application for writ of habeas corpus petitioner attacks an adjudication that he is an habitual criminal. He contends that the trial court erroneously found that he had suffered three prior convictions of felony in other states, whereas two of the convictions were of offenses which, if committed in California, would be only misdemeanors. Under the authority of In re McVickers, ante, p. 264 [176 P.2d 40], and In re Seeley, ante, p. 294 [176 P.2d 24], if this contention can be upheld by reference to the judicially noticed law of the states in which the priors were suffered, or to…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- In Re McVickersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
- In Re SeeleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
- People v. LumbleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
- In Re MarzecCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
- In Re GilliamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- People v. CrowsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983
- In Re PetersenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
- In Re FinleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- In Re WolfsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
- In Re JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.