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.
Robert Cecil BAKER, Petitioner and Appellant, v. MUNICIPAL COURT OF LOS ANGELES JUDICIAL DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court denying a writ of prohibition sought to restrain respondent municipal court from taking further proceedings in a criminal action.
Plaintiff was charged in the municipal court with a violation of section 23102 of the Vehicle Code (misdemeanor drunk driving). He demurred to the complaint on the ground section 23102 violated the Fourteenth Amendment and article I, section 13, clause 6, of the Constitution of California. The demurrer was overruled. Plaintiff then petitioned the superior court for a writ of prohibition to restrain the municipal court from taking further proceedings in the criminal action. The petition was denied. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment denying the writ.
The record shows that after the petition for the writ was denied plaintiff was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to 10 days in jail. It thus appears the appeal is moot and the judgment must be affirmed.
Prohibition is a preventive, rather than a corrective, remedy. It issues only to restrain the commission of a future act and not to undo an act already completed. It does not lie after judgment is entered where there are no further judicial acts to be performed or to prevent the enforcement of an erroneous judgment. (Big Jim Mines, Inc. v. Superior Court, 9 Cal.2d 503, 504, 71 P.2d 67; Donner Finance Co. v. Municipal Court, 28 Cal.App.2d 112, 114, 81 P.2d 1054; Lambert v. Municipal Court, 179 Cal.App.2d 682, 683, 3 Cal.Rptr. 894.)
Affirmed.
VALLEÉ, Justice.
SHINN, P. J., and FORD, J., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: Civ. 25193.
Decided: December 27, 1961
Court: District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
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.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)