Legal Opinion
In re Trainor
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 28, 1935No. Crim. No. 2702PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
On reading the amended petition, it is the opinion of the court that petitioner has failed to state facts entitling him to the writ. The petition does not say that petitioner is being detained under purported authority of the probation orders described, or either of them. It is stated only that he “now is being held, serving a county jail sentence in the county jail ... in violation of the probation order hereinbefore cited”. We must infer that in some action wherein petitioner was convicted of a public offense, he has been sentenced, by judgment of the court, to serve a term in the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- In Re EliasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Harris v. Superior Court of State of California for the County of Los AngelesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1974
- Paul Harris v. Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Andpeter Petchess, Sheriff of Los Angeles County, Co-Respondents, the State Ofcalifornia, Real Party in Interest, Fawn Harris v. Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Andpeter Pitchess, Sheriff of Los Angeles, County, Co-Respondents, the People Ofthe State of California, Real Party in InterestCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1974