Legal Opinion

In Re McInturff

California Supreme Court

Decided October 26, 1951No. Crim. 5233PublishedCited by 38 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSchauer, J.

The superior court, in this habeas corpus proceeding, determined that petitioner was unlawfully confined in the state prison at Folsom and ordered that he be discharged. The People appeal. The question is whether the writ of habeas corpus is available, after final judgment of conviction and sentence, to review the trial court’s erroneous refusal to certify petitioner to the Youth Authority. We have concluded that the writ cannot be used for this purpose. Petitioner is confined under a judgment of conviction of first degree robbery. At the time of his apprehension for the offense petitioner…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Abelleira v. District Court of AppealCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  2. In Re BellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  3. In Re LeeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
  4. In Re McVickersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  5. In Re ConnorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940

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

3Cited by38 opinions

  1. In Re EstradaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1965
  2. Neal v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
  3. In Re ClarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
  4. In Re DixonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
  5. In Re HarrisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993

33 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