Crittenden v. Municipal Court, San Diego Judicial Dist.
| Decision Date | 03 June 1963 |
| Parties | T. T. CRITTENDEN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MUNICIPAL COURT, SAN DIEGO JUDICIAL DISTRICT, San Diego County, etc., Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 6943. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
T. T. Crittenden, San Diego, in pro. per.
Bertram McLees, Jr., San Diego County Counsel and Stanley Friedman, Deputy County Counsel, for defendant and respondent.
Alan M. Firestone, City Atty. of San Diego and Gilbert E. Newton, Deputy City Atty., for City of San Diego and the People of the State of California, real parties in interest.
Plaintiff has appealed from a judgment of the superior court denying a writ of prohibition sought to restrain respondent municipal court from trying him on three complaints involving parking tickets.
After the superior court denied the writ, a trial was held in the municipal court at which time the complaint on one ticket was dismissed, on another plaintiff herein was found not guilty, and on the third he was convicted. Plaintiff has appealed the judgment of conviction to the appellate department of the superior court.
Plaintiff's appeal to this court is moot. There is nothing remaining in the municipal court to be prohibited. The actions against plaintiff in that court have been completed.
Prohibition has long been recognized as a preventive, not a corrective remedy; it is not a proper remedy to annul a judgment already entered. (Donner Finance Co. v. Municipal Court, 28 Cal.App.2d 112, 114, 81 P.2d 1054.) A writ of prohibition does not lie after judgment is entered where there are no further judicial acts to be performed, even though the judgment is erroneous. (Baker v. Municipal Court, 198 Cal.App.2d 556, 557, 17 Cal.Rptr. 642; McCormick v. Municipal Court, 195 Cal.App.2d 819, 820-821, 16 Cal.Rptr. 211.)
'An appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court denying a Writ of Prohibition will not be tolerated as a means of circumventing the proper appellate tribunal, namely the Appellate Department of the Superior Court.' (Lambert v. Municipal Court, 179 Cal.App.2d 682, 683, 3 Cal.Rptr. 894.)
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shenfield v. City Court of City of Tucson, Pima County
...No. One, 5 Ariz.App. 424, 427 P.2d 558 (1967); Peterson v. Jacobson, 2 Ariz.App. 593, 411 P.2d 31 (1966); Crittenden v. Municipal Court, 216 Cal.App.2d 811, 31 Cal.Rptr. 280 (1963); Collette v. Matejcek, 146 N.W.2d 156 (N.D. 1966); Kennett v. Levine, 49 Wash.2d 605, 304 P.2d 682 (1956). The......
-
State ex rel. Link v. Olson, 9673
...proper use is to prohibit the doing of something, not the undoing of something already done. Crittenden v. Municipal Court, San Diego Judicial District, 216 Cal.App.2d 811, 31 Cal.Rptr. 280 (1963); State ex rel. R.C. Motor Lines, Inc. v. Boyd, 114 So.2d 169 (Fla.1959)." 160 N.W.2d at In the......
-
Tsipai v. State
...5 Ariz.App. 424, 427 P.2d 558 (1967); Peterson v. Jacobson, 2 Ariz.App. 593, 411 P.2d 31 (1966); and see Crittenden v. Municipal Court, 216 Cal.App.2d 811, 31 Cal.Rptr. 280 (1963); Collette v. Matejcek, 146 N.W.2d 156 (N.D.1966); and Kennett v. Levine, 49 Wash.2d 605, 304 P.2d 682 (1956). T......
-
People v. Carreras
... ... District Court of Appeal, Third District, California ... June ... ...