RODMAN v. SUPERIOR COURT IN AND FOR NEVADA COUNTY (1938)

This is a proceeding to review an order of the Superior Court wherein it was ordered and directed that certain money on deposit as bail be applied toward the payment of a fine.

A criminal prosecution had been instituted against one C.E. Circle. Eli Rodman, petitioner herein, and a friend of Circle, in order to secure his release deposited the sum of $500 as bail, which had been previously set at that amount. Thereafter Circle was convicted and the court in pronouncing judgment, imposed a fine upon him in the sum of $600, and ordered that the clerk apply the money deposited as bail toward the payment of the fine.

It is now claimed this order was made without and in excess of the jurisdiction of the court in view of the provisions of section 1297 of the Penal Code.

We do not deem it necessary to pass upon the various points raised, for we are of the opinion that petitioner has mistaken his remedy. A writ of review is not a proper means of attacking an order of the court, where the act of the court was not in excess of its jurisdiction, regardless of whether or not the act of the court may be erroneous. Karry et al. v. Superior Court, 162 Cal. 281, 282, 122 P. 475, 128 P. 760. The mere fact the court may have erred does not make its act an excess of jurisdiction.

There is no question but that the Superior Court had jurisdiction both of the person and of the offense for which the defendant was held. The court was also given the power of directing any deposit as bail to be applied toward the payment of any fine that might be imposed, under certain conditions set forth in the statute. Pen.Code, § 1297. Whichever course the court took, it was acting in the exercise of its jurisdiction and not in excess thereof. There is a distinction between jurisdiction and power. It had the power to act and even if the exercise of that power was erroneous it was not beyond its jurisdiction, and mere error is not reviewable on certiorari.

“Where a court is invested with jurisdiction to determine the question of the guilt or innocence of one charged with a public offense, as was the police court in this case, by the filing of the complaint and by acquiring jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, its determination on the question of guilt or innocence, whether based on sufficient evidence or not, is a determination arrived at in the exercise of its jurisdiction, and, however erroneous it may be, it is not void for want of power in the court to render the decision. Invested with the jurisdiction to determine the matter, the court has the power to determine it wrongly upon the evidence as well as correctly, and, under our law, the defendant's only remedy in the event of an incorrect decision is by appeal.” Roberts v. Police Court, 185 Cal. 65, 68, 195 P. 1053, 1054.

The order of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.