Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

In Re McVickers

California Supreme Court

Decided December 3, 1946No. Crim. 4680Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

SPENCE, J., Concurring and Dissenting.

I concur with the conclusion reached in the majority opinion that the writ should be discharged and that the petitioner should be remanded to custody. I further concur with the conclusion *282reached therein sustaining the trial court’s adjudication that petitioner is an habitual criminal by virtue of his two prior convictions of burglary and forgery. I dissent, however, from the conclusion reached with respect to the third prior conviction of grand larceny in Utah, and from the further conclusion that “petitioner is an habitual criminal who has been…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. In Re BellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  3. In Re ConnorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  4. In Re SeeleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  5. In Re MooneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937

21 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