Benson v. State of California
Decision Date | 14 February 1964 |
Docket Number | No. 19069.,19069. |
Citation | 328 F.2d 159 |
Parties | Ralph R. BENSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Peter Pitchess, Sheriff of Los Angeles County, and Leland Carter, Probation Officer of Los Angeles County, Respondents-Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
George W. Kell, Monterey Park, Cal., for appellant.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., for State of California, William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., William B. McKesson, Dist. Atty., Los Angeles County, and Harry Wood, Deputy Dist. Atty., and Harry B. Sondheim, Deputy Dist. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before CHAMBERS, POPE and JERTBERG, Circuit Judges.
The petitioner above named filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus in the district court. He also asked for release on bail. His petition was heard by the district judge who examined the entire record of petitioner's case in the state courts of California where he was convicted of a felony, sentenced to a prison term of five years, his sentence was suspended and the petitioner placed on probation for said period of five years on condition that he first serve 180 days in the Los Angeles County jail and pay a fine of $5000. He began service of his 180 day term on October 15, 1963, and after calculation of such good time allowance as he may have, he is due to be released from jail on or about the 29th day of February, 1964.
His conviction and sentence in the state court was affirmed. See People v. Benson, 206 Cal.App.2d 519, 23 Cal.Rptr. 908 (August 24, 1962). Hearing was denied by the Supreme Court of California, and his petition for certiorari was denied in the United States Supreme Court, 374 U.S. 806, 83 S.Ct. 1691, 10 L.Ed.2d 1030. After having thus exhausted his remedies in the state courts, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus mentioned above. His petition was denied as well as his application for release on bail; a certificate of probable cause was issued by the district judge and he has appealed to this court from the denial of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. He has now, in connection with that appeal, filed with us a petition for enlargement on bail pending appeal here.
The petition for habeas corpus, although filling 79 pages in the transcript of the record, presents no extraordinary statement or claims of fact outside of the ordinary run of such petitions commonly filed in the federal court by state prisoners seeking release on habeas corpus. Some of the five points sought to be made by petitioner in support of his petition for habeas corpus appear to be no more than attempts to procure a review in the federal courts of rulings on questions of California law. Thus he asserts that the state courts erroneously misapplied the California law relating to the definitions of entrapment; that the court had erroneously admitted hearsay evidence, and that it misinterpreted the California Insurance Code. There is a claim that there was an erroneous admission of illegally obtained evidence, but a similar claim was rejected by the California courts, and it may well be that as a matter of law no showing of illegally obtained evidence is presented by the petition or by petitioner's statement of facts in the case. At any rate in due course petitioner's appeal will come on for hearing in this court and the same will be heard upon the merits.
This brings us to the question of whether the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. The applicable Rule is Rule 49 of the Supreme Court Rules which provides as follows:
The court below first...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Morgan v. Thomas
...11 Ibid. 12 409 F.2d 784 (C.A. 5, 1969). 13 Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 83 S.Ct. 373, 9 L.Ed.2d 285 (1963). 14 Benson v. California, 328 F.2d 159 (9 Cir., 1964). 15 Foster v. Gilbert, 264 F.Supp. 209 (D.C.S.D.Fla., 16 105 F.Supp. 139, 148 (E.D.Pa.1952). 17 422 F.2d 299 (C.A. 5, 1970)......
-
Beckway v. Deshong
...before the court, and have his probation revoked and terminated upon the mere report of the probation officer." Benson v. California, 328 F.2d 159, 162 (9th Cir.1964). An individual on summary probation faces those same constraints. On the surface, the conditions imposed on Beckway appear n......
-
Eisel v. Secretary of the Army
...20 371 U.S. 236, 83 S.Ct. 373, 9 L.Ed.2d 285 (1963). 21 Id. at 240 and 243, 83 S.Ct. at 376, 377. 22 See, e. g., Benson v. California, 328 F.2d 159 (9th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 951, 85 S.Ct. 1086, 13 L.Ed.2d 970 23 New York ex rel. Williams v. New York State Addiction Control Com......
-
Briggs v. Fresno Superior Court
...circumstances that make him exceptional and especially deserving of special treatment in the interests of justice. Benson v. California, 328 F.2d 159, 162 (9th Cir. 1964). The Court must also consider the petitioner's risk of flight and the danger to the community should the petitioner be r......
-
28 U.S.C. § 2254 State Custody; Remedies In Federal Courts
...is not likely to decrease in frequency. Following the decisions in Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 (1963), and Benson v. California, 328 F.2d 159 (9th Cir. 1964), the concept of custody expanded greatly, lengthening the time period during which a habeas corpus petition may be filed. The p......