Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

In Re Taylor

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 21, 1944No. Crim. No. 1866PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPeek, J.

Petitioner contends that his present confinement by the Warden of Folsom Prison is illegal in that the judgment of commitment under which he received sentence is void in part, and that the maximum term prescribed under the valid portion of the judgment has been served.

By an amended information filed in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, on May 11, 1934, petitioner was charged with the commission of the crime of burglary, a felony, and also was charged with having suffered four prior convictions for crimes amounting to felonies.

Petitioner was found guilty by a jury of the crime of…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. In Re ConnorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  2. In re Estate of EichhoffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  3. People v. HayesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
  4. In Re MirandoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. People v. GuerreroCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  2. In Re McVickersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  3. People v. CrowsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983
  4. In Re SeeleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  5. People v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API