AI-generated from this judgment's text. It can contain errors and is not the official version.
No AI brief yet. Click to generate.
Majority
Headnote
[1] Criminal Law—Habeas Corpus—Sufficiency of Information.— Where the information upon which a judgment is based clearly attempts to charge a felony, the question whether the specific acts alleged as constituting the offense fail to sufficiently show the public offense attempted to be charged, is a question which cannot be considered on habeas corpus.[1] The information in the superior court upon which the judgment against petitioner is based , clearly attempted to charge the felony defined by section 476a of the Penal Code. Whether the specific facts alleged as constituting the particular offense failed to sufficiently ■ Show the public offense attempted to be charged is a question which cannot be considered on habeas corpus under the well-settled rule of this jurisdiction. (Matter of Buef, 150 Cal. 665 , [ 89 Pae. 605 ]; see, also, Em parte Greenall, 153 Cal. 770 , [ 96 Pac. 804 ].)
As to the second point, in view of the facts and exhibits shown by the petition, it must be held that the superior court did vacate the order suspending the execution of the judgment.
The application for a writ of habeas corpus was denied for these reasons.
Shaw, J., Wilbur, J., Lennon, J., Olney, J., Lawlor, J., Melvin, J., and Angellotti, C. J., concurred.
Cases cited
- In re Ruef 150 Cal. 665 p. 182