Legal Opinion

In Re Mirando

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 14, 1936No. Crim. 1514PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.

On habeas corpus the petitioner asserts that he is illegally restrained of his liberty because the City Court of the City of Vacaville, Solano County, was without jurisdiction to try or sentence him under the provisions of section 502 of the California Vehicle Code for the reason that he had been previously convicted of a similar offense in another inferior court, which former conviction fixed his penalty in the last case at imprisonment in the county jail-“for not less than ninety days nor more than one year”, and under the provisions of section 1425, subdivision 2:

“Justices’ Courts of Class…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. In Re WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  2. In Re SelowskyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  3. In Re HallCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. In Re CarmenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  2. In Re TaylorCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
  3. In Re CarmenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  4. In Re McVickersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  5. In Re McVickersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946

2 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