DIGIURO v. <<

Reset A A Font size: Print

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

Ex parte DIGIURO.

Cr. 4568.

Decided: November 15, 1950

Frank Desimone, Los Angeles, for appellant. Ray L. Chesebro, City Atty., Donald M. Redwine, Asst. City Atty., and Leland C. Nielsen, Deputy City Atty., all of Los Angeles for respondent.

In the application for a rehearing, it is argued that the accusation is sufficient because it alleges that the defendant, ‘being a person required to register under the provisions of Sec. 52.38 to 52.43 inclusive of the Los Angeles Municipal Code who, changed his place of residence, stoppingplace and living quarters, did wilfully and unlawfully fail within 48 hours after such change to notify the Chief of Police, the address of his new residence, stopping place and living quarters in the same manner and with the same detailed information as is required in the filing of the original statements under the provisions of Sec. 52.39 of said code’. It is contended that this complies with Sec. 1426 of the Penal Code. The latter section provides that the alleged offense must set forth ‘the offense charged, with such particulars of time, place, person and property as to enable the defendant to understand distinctly the character of the offense complained of, and to answer the complaint’ or ‘it may be in the words of the enactment describing the offense’. This section, in effect, is the equivalent of Sec. 952 of the Penal Code, although perhaps more specific. The complaint falls far short of these elementary requirements.

It is also contended that habeas corpus is not available in the circumstance, citing numerous cases. Sec. 4b of Art. VI of the California Constitution, and Article I, sec. 9 of the United States Constitution determine the authority and duty of the courts with regard to habeas corpus.

Petition for rehearing denied.

PER CURIAM.