In Re Seeley
California Supreme Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
SPENCE, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I concur in the conclusion reached in the majority opinion that the writ should be discharged and that the petitioner should be remanded to custody. I dissent, however, from the implied conclusion there reached that the judgment adjudicating petitioner’s status as an habitual criminal should be nullified in this proceeding on habeas corpus, and also from the express conclusion that 11 The proper course to pursue is for the constituted authority to refix the sentence of the petitioner in accordance with the declaration of his rights as stated in this [the…
2Cases cited50 opinions
- Powell v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Mooney v. HolohanSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Frank v. MangumSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Abelleira v. District Court of AppealCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- In Re BellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.