Skip to main content

JACINTO v. << (1935)

District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, California.

Ex parte JACINTO.

Cr. 185.

Decided: July 02, 1935

Thomas F. Lopez and G. L. Aynesworth, both of Fresno, for petitioner. Whitehurst & Logan, of Patterson, and Hawkins & Hawkins, of Modesto, amici curiæ for petitioner. Roger R. Walch, District Attorney, of Hanford, for respondent.

In his petition for a writ of habeas corpus Louis Jacinto seeks to be released from restraint under a warrant of arrest issued by the justice of the peace of Hanford township on an offense alleged to have been committed in Lemoore township in Kings county. The justice's courts of both townships are class B.

The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to test the validity of the process upon which a person is restrained and the jurisdiction of the court issuing such process. Ex parte Long, 114 Cal. 159, 45 P. 1057.

Section 1425 of the Penal Code as now in effect (St. 1933, p. 1454) confines the jurisdiction of class B “Justices' courts in criminal causes to the township wherein the offense was committed.” Antilla v. Justice's Court, 209 Cal. 621, 290 P. 43, 45. See, also, In re Cohen, 107 Cal. App. 288, 290 P. 512; In re Bridwell, 112 Cal. App. 19, 296 P. 312; In re Giruado, 114 Cal. App. 348, 299 P. 740; In re Wyatt, 114 Cal. App. 557, 300 P. 132; Fueller v. Justice's Court, 134 Cal. App. 305, 25 P.(2d) 248. It follows that as the justice's court of Hanford township was a class B justice's court and the crime had been committed in another township, the justice's court of Hanford township had no jurisdiction and petitioner should be discharged.

The question of the territorial jurisdiction of the justice's court of Hanford township is not raised in the briefs of counsel or of amici curiæ. It is desired that we pass on the constitutionality of certain sections of the Agricultural Code, and of an ordinance of Kings county having for its purpose the eradication of bovine tuberculosis in that county. As petitioner must be released from custody because of lack of jurisdiction of the justice's court of Hanford township over the offense charged in the complaint, it is apparent that it is unnecessary, if not improper, for us to consider the constitutional questions raised in the briefs.

Petitioner is discharged from custody and his bail is exonerated.

MARKS, Justice.

We concur: BARNARD, P. J.; HARDEN, Justice pro tem.

Was this helpful?

Thank you. Your response has been sent.

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go to Learn About the Law
JACINTO v. << (1935)

Docket No: Cr. 185.

Decided: July 02, 1935

Court: District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, California.

Get a profile on the #1 online legal directory

Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.

Sign up

Learn About the Law

Get help with your legal needs

FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.

Learn more about the law
Copied to clipboard