Griggs v. Superior Court for San Bernardino County
| Decision Date | 19 August 1975 |
| Citation | 50 Cal.App.3d 738,123 Cal.Rptr. 583 |
| Parties | Bertram S. GRIGGS as Superintendent of the California institution for Men, Chino, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California FOR the COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, Respondent; Robert B. HEDBERG et al., Real Parties in Interest. Civ. 15264. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Jack R. Winkler, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Daniel J. Kremer, Asst. Atty. Gen., A. Wells Petersen and Karl J. Phaler, Deputy Attys. Gen., for petitioner.
Charles S. Wolfe, Upland, for real parties in interest.
No appearance for respondent.
Petitioner is the Superintendent of the California Institution for Men at Chino, California. In three habeas corpus proceedings he seeks a writ of mandate or prohibition to compel the San Bernardino Superior Court to quash its orders to show cause and to dismiss the petitions for habeas corpus on the ground that the San Bernardino Superior Court is not the court having territorial jurisdiction.
In issuing the alternative writ we have determined that petitioner has no adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. (Randone v. Appellate Department, 5 Cal.3d 536, 543, 96 Cal.Rptr. 709, 488 P.2d 13; Brown v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.3d 509, 515, 96 Cal.Rptr. 584, 487 P.2d 1224; Ford v. Superior Court, 34 Cal.App.3d 338, 340, 109 Cal.Rptr. 844.)
Real parties in interest are three convicted felons who filed petitions for habeas corpus in the San Bernardino Superior Court. Each on the date his petition was filed was incarcerated at the California Institution for Men at Chino. The gravamen of the petitions for habeas corpus are as follows: Ramirez asserted that he had been denied access to lawbooks and other legal materials while in confinement at the segregation unit at Chino; Hedberg asserted that he should be serving a concurrent federal sentence in federal prison and sought a transfer to federal prison; Cisneros asserted that his records incorrectly contained a notation that he was convicted of arson in 1962 and that such incorrect information makes him ineligible for assignment to a prison camp.
In all three cases, on April 11, 1975, the San Bernardino Superior Court issued orders to show cause directed to petitioner herein Bertram S. Griggs as Superintendent of the California Institution for Men at Chino. In the interim between the filing of each petition for habeas corpus and the issuance of an order to show cause on April 11, 1975, each real party in interest was, in the normal course of administration, transferred to a penal institution outside the County of San Bernardino. Ramirez was transferred to Soledad in Monterey County; Hedberg was transferred to Folsom in Sacramento County; and Cisneros was transferred to Tehachapi in Kern County.
In each case petitioner made a motion to quash the order to show cause on the ground that, at the time the order to show cause issued, the habeas corpus petitioner was no longer confined in San Bernardino County. In each case the habeas corpus petitioner made a motion that the San Bernardino Superior Court transfer the habeas corpus matter to the superior court of the county in which each habeas corpus petitioner was now confined. The court denied the motions to quash the orders to show cause. The court did not rule, however, on the motions to transfer. Subsequently, on or about June 4, 1975, real party Ramirez filed in the San Bernardino Superior Court a motion to dismiss his petition for writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the petition was moot. On the same date real party Hedberg filed a motion to dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus on the ground that he no longer desired the relief requested. In the meantime, on May 30, 1975, we issued an alternative writ of prohibition and/or mandamus, and the San Bernardino Superior Court has taken no formal action on the motions to dismiss by Ramirez and Hedberg.
Petitioner Griggs takes the position that since each of the habeas corpus petitioners were transferred to penal institutions outside the County of San Bernardino in the ordinary course of penal administration prior to the issuance of orders to show cause by the San Bernardino Superior Court, the San Bernardino Superior Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to issue orders to show cause and abused its discretion in refusing to quash the orders to show cause issued on the habeas corpus petitions. In the return to the alternative writ of prohibition and/or mandamus issued by us, real parties in interest take the position that as to Ramirez and Hedberg the matters are moot and habeas corpus is no longer desired. Real party Cisneros concedes that the San Bernardino Superior Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to issue an order to show cause but contends that the San Bernardino Superior Court has the power to and ought to transfer the petition for habeas corpus to the Superior Court having territorial jurisdiction, the Kern County Superior Court.
Prior to the 1966 revision of the California Constitution, it was clear that a superior court could issue a writ of habeas corpus only with respect to a person confined within the territorial limits of the particular county. Article VI, section 5, of the California Constitution then provided in pertinent part: '. . . [S]uperior courts . . . shall have power to issue writs of . . . habeas corpus on petition by or on behalf of any person in actual custody, in their respective counties.' (Emphasis added.) The case law interpreting this constitutional provision was clear: 'A superior court has power to issue a writ of habeas corpus only on a petition by or on behalf of a person in custody within the county . . ..' (People v. Clinton, 243 Cal.App.2d 284, 287, 52 Cal.Rptr. 221, 223.) Although the present applicable constitutional and statutory provisions are not as clear, we have concluded that the rule stated in Clinton, supra, remains unchanged.
In the constitutional revision of 1966, article VI, section 5 of the Constitution became article VI, section 10 which provides: 'The Supreme Court, courts of appeal, superior courts, and their judges have original jurisdiction in habeas corpus proceedings. . . .' One legal writer concluded from the change in constitutional language that the concept of territorial jurisdiction in habeas corpus proceedings had been abrogated. (See Judicial Council of California, 1971 Annual Report, 22, 54.) We think this view is mistaken. Whatever may be the origins and history of the doctrine of territorial jurisdiction, the doctrine continues to serve two important purposes. One is to shorten the travel distance and minimize the danger and expense involved in bringing the habeas corpus petitioner before the court. (See Pen.Code, §§ 1481, 1482.) A second is the avoidance of rampant forum shopping which would result from the elimination of the rule of territorial jurisdiction.
Penal Code, section 1508 provides in pertinent part: '(c) A writ of habeas corpus issued by a superior court or a judge thereof may be made returnable before the issuing judge or his court.' (Emphasis supplied.) Keeping in mind the two purposes served by the rule of territorial jurisdiction, the provision of Penal Code, section 1508 that a superior court may only make a writ of habeas corpus returnable before that court, logically indicates that the writ should not issue except as to persons confined within the territorial jurisdiction of the issuing superior court. 1 Understandably, the decisions since the 1966 constitutional revision have uniformly indicated, albeit without articulating much of the underlying reasoning, that the doctrine of territorial jurisdiction still applies. (See In re Cortez, 6 Cal.3d 78, 88, 98 Cal.Rptr. 307, 490 P.2d 819; In re Crow, 4 Cal.3d 613, 624, 94 Cal.Rptr. 254, 483 P.2d 1206; People v. Tenorio, 3 Cal.3d 89, 95, fn. 2, 89 Cal.Rptr. 249, 473 P.2d 993; In re Montgomery, 2 Cal.3d 863, 868-869, fn. 4, 87 Cal.Rptr. 695, 471 P.2d 15; In re Haro, 71 Cal.2d 1021, 1024-1025 and fn. 1, 80 Cal.Rptr. 588, 458 P.2d 500; In re Caffey, 68 Cal.2d 762, 765, fn. 3, 69 Cal.Rptr. 93, 441 P.2d 933; People v. Brady, 30 Cal.App.3d 81, 88, fn. 1, 105 Cal.Rptr. 280; People v. Gonzalez, 7 Cal.App.3d 163, 166, 86 Cal.Rptr. 512; cf. In re Rinegold, 13 Cal.App.3d 723, 725, fn. 1, 92 Cal.Rptr. 18; People v. Buccheri, 2 Cal.App.3d 842, 845, 83 Cal.Rptr. 221; also see Witkin, Cal. Criminal Procedure (1973 Supp.) § 792, pp. 606-607). We conclude that the doctrine of territorial jurisdiction still obtains.
Having concluded that the doctrine of territorial jurisdiction applies, the next question is at what point in the habeas corpus process the habeas corpus petitioner must be confined within the territorial jurisdiction of the court from which habeas corpus is sought. The Attorney General asserts that the crucial time or event is the time at which the court issues and serves the writ (see Pen.Code, §§ 1476, 1477, 1478; Witkin, Cal. Criminal Procedure (1963) § 816, pp. 785-786) or the order to show cause 2 is issued and served (see Witkin, Cal. Criminal Procedure (1963) § 821, p. 788.) Real parties in interest do not contest the Attorney General's assertion. Although no decided case or authority has been cited or found directly on point, we are persuaded that the Attorney General is correct.
The petition for habeas corpus is only an application requesting the court to exercise its jurisdiction. (See Pen.Code, § 1474.) If the petition does not state facts which, if true, would entitle the petitioner to relief, the petition for habeas corpus may be denied without more. (See In re Crow, supra, 4 Cal.3d at p. 624, 94 Cal.Rptr. 254, 483 P.2d 1206.) The return required by issuance and service of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez
....... No. 94-16337. . United States Court of Appeals, . Ninth Circuit. . Argued and Submitted March ... I . On November 17, 1989 in the Superior Court for Santa Clara County, a jury found Ortiz-Sandoval ... cite this case as decisional law, we note that in Griggs v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.App.3d 738, 123 Cal.Rptr. 583, ......