Majority
p. 589[Crim. No. 1466. Second Appellate District, Division One. January January 7, 1927.] In the Matter of the Application of JOHN E. STALEY, on Behalf of WALLENTZ CRANICZNY, for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Headnote
[l] Criminal Law—Habeas Corpus—Pleading—Evidence.—The evidence received in the trial before the recorder’s court may not be considered in a subsequent proceeding on behalf of the defendant, after conviction and commitment, to secure his release onSee 13 Cal. Jur. 218 j 12 K. C. L. 1243.
p. 590
habeas corpus; and where the matters set forth in the petition cannot be proved without referring to such evidence, the application will be denied.
(1) 29 O. J., p. 149, n. 81 New.
APPLICATION for a Writ of Habeas' Corpus to secure release from custody after conviction in the recorder’s court.
Writ denied.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
John B. Staley for Petitioner.
[1] This application is not materially different from Criminal No. 1464, wherein C. A. Stice made a similar application on behalf of Craniczny. The additional matters set forth in the petition herein could not be proved without referring to the evidence received in the trial before the recorder’s court. But such evidence may not be considered in this proceeding. (In re Kaster, 52 Cal. App. 454 [ 198 Pac. 1029 ]; In re Kaster, 185 Cal. 647 [ 198 Pac. 1031 ].) The application for a writ is denied.
Cases cited
- In re Kaster 52 Cal. App. 454 p. 590
- In re Kaster 185 Cal. 647 p. 590