Hogue v. Duffy, 9844.
| Decision Date | 16 January 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 9844.,9844. |
| Citation | 124 F.2d 864 |
| Parties | HOGUE v. DUFFY, Warden. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
J. Frank Hogue, in pro. per.
Earl Warren, Atty. Gen., and David K. Lener, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before GARRECHT, HANEY, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.
The court below denied Hogue's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and he appeals. The petition alleged that he was in the custody of Duffy, the warden of the California State Prison at San Quentin, California; that he had exhausted the legal remedies afforded by the State of California to secure his release from the penitentiary; that his imprisonment was violative of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and, also, that he has been denied the writ of habeas corpus despite the terms of Art. I, Sec. 9, Cl. 2, of the said Constitution; that the statute under which he was convicted provided no maximum term of imprisonment, which term, in this instance, was fixed by the Board of Prison Terms and Paroles of California, in excess of its authority. The petitioner further alleged that he was indicted (in two counts) and pleaded guilty to violation of Section 288 of the Penal Code of California; that he was sentenced on May 29, 1935, to imprisonment "for the term prescribed by law," the terms of imprisonment to run concurrently; that on October 8, 1936, one year and three days after entering prison, he was questioned by the California State Board of Prison Terms and Paroles in a meeting at San Quentin and on the following day was notified, in writing, that his term was fixed at twenty years and five years. He contended that the illegality of his restraint consisted of the following:
The remainder of the petition was devoted to argument urging issuance of the writ of habeas corpus, and concluded with a prayer therefor.
The court below, in denying the writ, held "that even where a defendant has exhausted his state remedies, the United States District Courts will ordinarily not interfere by habeas corpus, but will leave him to take his case direct to the United States Supreme Court."
The Supreme Court of the State of California, the District Courts of Appeal and the Superior Courts of the State are empowered to issue writs of habeas corpus in the exercise of their original jurisdiction (Const. Calif., Art. VI, sec. 4, 4b, and 5; 13 Cal.Jur. § 59, p. 284), but if the writ is petitioned for and denied in the lower court, no appeal will lie (Ex parte Zany, 164 Cal. 724, 130 P. 710) and if it is desired to pursue the remedy further, a new application must be made to the higher court (Sec. 1475, Penal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hawk v. Olson
...7 Cir., 117 F. 2d 989, 994, 995; Davis v. Dowd, 7 Cir., 119 F.2d 338; Kramer v. State of Nevada, 9 Cir., 122 F.2d 417; Hogue v. Duffy, 9 Cir., 124 F.2d 864, 865, certiorari denied, 316 U.S. 675, 62 S.Ct. 1044, 86 L.Ed. ___; In re Miller, 9 Cir., 126 F.2d 826, certiorari denied Miller v. Duf......
-
Mason v. Webb, 10431.
...9 Cir., 117 F.2d 939, 940; Id., 9 Cir., 118 F.2d 750, 751; Kramer v. State of Nevada, 9 Cir., 122 F.2d 417, 419; Hogue v. Duffy, Warden, 9 Cir., 124 F.2d 864, 865, certiorari denied 316 U.S. 675, 62 S.Ct. 1044, 86 L.Ed. 1749; In re Miller, 9 Cir., 126 F.2d 826, 827, certiorari denied Miller......
-
Barton v. Smith
...98 F.2d 791, 792; Palmer v. McCauley, 9 Cir., 103 F.2d 300, 301; Kramer v. State of Nevada, 9 Cir., 122 F.2d 417, 418; Hogue v. Duffy, 9 Cir., 124 F.2d 864, 865, certiorari denied, 316 U.S. 675, 62 S.Ct. 1044, 86 L.Ed. 1749; Mason v. Smith, 9 Cir., 148 F.2d 894, 895, motion for leave to fil......
-
Kelly v. Ragen
...under a state law is by application to the state courts, and if denied by appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States." Hogue v. Duffy, 124 F.2d 864, 865, certiorari denied April 27, 1942, 62 S.Ct. 1044, 86 L. Ed. ___, and cases there 2 Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U.S. 19, 59 S.Ct. 442, 83 ......