Ex parte Garrison

• Decision Date: 14 March 1924
• Docket Number: 872.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
• Parties: Ex parte GARRISON.

297 F. 509

Ex parte GARRISON.

No. 872.

United States District Court, S.D. California, Northern Division.

March 14, 1924

D. M Edwards and J. C. Thomas, both of Visalia, Cal., for petitioner.

Fred C Scott, Dist. Atty., and Leroy McCormick, Deputy Dist. Atty both of Visalia, Cal., for respondents.

BLEDSOE District Judge.

In 1921 the Legislature of California adopted an act known as the Wright Act, ratified by referendary vote of the people thereafter, and entitled:

'An act to enforce the provisions of article eighteen of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States; prohibiting all acts or omissions prohibited by the Volstead Act; imposing duties on courts, prosecuting attorneys, sheriffs and other officers, and extending their jurisdiction; and providing for the disposition of fines and forfeitures. ' St. Cal. 1921, p. 79.

Sections 1 and 2 of the Wright Act read as follows:

'Section 1. California hereby recognizes the requirements of the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States for its concurrent enforcement by the Congress and the several states. To that end, the penal provisions of the Volstead Act are hereby adopted as the law of this state; and the courts of this state are hereby vested with the jurisdiction, and the duty is hereby imposed upon all prosecuting attorneys, sheriffs, grand juries, magistrates and peace officers in the state, to enforce the same.

'Sec. 2. All acts or omissions prohibited or declared unlawful by the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States or by the Volstead Act are hereby prohibited and declared unlawful; and violations thereof are subject to the penalties provided in the Volstead Act.'

Pursuant to such legislation, petitioner, in October, 1923, was prosecuted and convicted in the justice's court of Visalia township, county of Tulare, state of California, of three separate violations of the Volstead Act (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, Sec. 10138 1/4 et seq.): (1) Possession of intoxicating liquor; (2) transportation of the same; and (3) having in possession a still and other implements intended for use in the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, etc. After such conviction sentence was pronounced to the effect that for each of said offenses and upon each count in the complaint upon which he had been convicted he should be fined the sum of $500, 'and, in case the fine was not paid by 11 o'clock on the 17th day of October, 1923, that the defendant be imprisoned in the county jail of the county of Tulare until the fine be duly satisfied, in the proportion of one day's imprisonment for every dollar of the fine, and the payment of such portion of such fine as shall not have been satisfied, by imprisonment at the rate above prescribed,' etc.

Petitioner appealed to the superior court of Tulare county, which tribunal affirmed the judgment pronounced. Thereafter a writ of habeas corpus was sued out in the District Court of Appeal of the State of California, but, the writ being denied, the prisoner was remanded. Thereafter application was made by petitioner to the Supreme Court of the state of California for release by habeas corpus, but that court, upon consideration of the same, and for the reasons announced, denied the application. Ex parte Garrison for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Cal. Sup.) 223 P. 64.

Application has been made to this court for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, and an order to show cause why a writ should not issue was entered. The matter is pending upon a demurrer to the petition for the writ.

Petitioner's claims are substantially that under the Volstead (National Prohibition) Act n o punishment other than fine is provided for any of the violations of which he stands convicted (National Prohibition Act, tit. 2, Secs. 3, 25, and 29 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, Secs. 10138 1/2aa, 10138 1/2m, 10138 1/2p)), and that, in consequence, the justice's court of Visalia township had no authority or jurisdiction to decree the imprisonment of petitioner as for or upon the nonpayment of the fines imposed; that the resulting imprisonment is unwarranted by law, and that it is violative of article 8 of the amendments of the Constitution of the United States in that it is cruel and unusual. This latter contention arises out of the fact that petitioner alleges his complete inability to meet the fines imposed, and that as a result he will be compelled to remain in jail for a total of 1,500 days as for the three violations referred to.

Section 1446 of the Penal Code of the state of California, applicable to 'proceedings in justice's and police courts' (Ex parte Kennerly (Cal. Sup.) 214 P. 857), reads as follows:

'A judgment that the defendant pay a fine may also direct that he be imprisoned until the fine be satisfied, in the proportion of one day's imprisonment for every dollar of the fine.'

It is conceded that the judgment rendered hereinabove was based upon and imposed pursuant to the requirements of the section just quoted. The highest court of the state has determined in the application of petitioner presented to it, supra, that the justice's court under the provisions of that section had power to impose the judgment pronounced herein, and that the rendition thereof was valid and in accordance with the local law. The whole matter involving merely a construction of state statutes, and the state Supreme Court having announced a construction in no wise opposed to or violative of any of the provisions of the federal Constitution in so far as I can discover, it would seem clear that the petitioner is foreclosed from any appeal to the...