In re Application of Johnson, Civil 4057
| Court | Supreme Court of Arizona |
| Writing for the Court | McALISTER, J. |
| Citation | 53 Ariz. 161,87 P.2d 107 |
| Decision Date | 13 February 1939 |
| Docket Number | Civil 4057 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Application of HUBBARD JOHNSON for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. HUBBARD JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee |
87 P.2d 107
53 Ariz. 161
In the Matter of the Application of HUBBARD JOHNSON for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. HUBBARD JOHNSON, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee
Civil No. 4057
Supreme Court of Arizona
February 13, 1939
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. E. G. Frazier, Judge. Judgment affirmed.
Mr. Greg Garcia and Mr. James Garcia, for Appellant.
Mr. Joe Conway, Attorney General, and Mr. W. E. Polley, his Assistant, for Appellee.
OPINION
[53 Ariz. 162] McALISTER, J.
Hubbard Johnson appeals from an order refusing to release him from prison after a hearing upon his application for a writ of habeas corpus. His claim is that he is restrained illegally and without authority of law.
His application was based on these facts: On October 14, 1933, he entered a plea of guilty in the superior court of Maricopa county to the crime of robbery and on the same day the imposition of sentence was suspended for a period of five years from that date upon the conditions fixed by the court, which, so far as the record discloses, he complied with until some time in [53 Ariz. 163] October, 1938. On the fourth of that month he was arrested for arson and nine days later, or on October 13th, brought before the superior court and sentenced to a term of not less than five nor more than seven years from that date in the state prison for the robbery to which he had pleaded guilty in October, 1933. Before pronouncing sentence and remanding the [87 P.2d 108] petitioner to the sheriff for delivery to the proper officers of the prison the court asked him if he had "anything to say or legal cause to show why the suspension of sentence should not be revoked by virtue of his failure to live up to the terms of probation" and in reply he made a statement but the nature of it is not disclosed by the record. Evidently it was not one that satisfied the court that he had been complying with the conditions of his probation, since sentence was imposed immediately thereafter.
On November 2, 1938, the petitioner was brought before the superior court of Maricopa county on a writ of habeas corpus issued out of that court on October 29th for the purpose of determining the legality of his detention in prison. The return of the prison superintendent was that he held petitioner under a commitment issued out of the superior court of Maricopa county, and after a hearing the writ was quashed and the petitioner remanded to the custody of the prison authorities, and it is this order from which he appeals.
The contention of the appellant is that the court had no jurisdiction on October 13, 1938, to pronounce sentence against him for several reasons: The first is that he was not granted a proper hearing in that he was not given an opportunity to show whether he had complied with the terms and conditions of his probation. All the record discloses relative to this is that about ten days the five-year probationary period expired he was arrested for arson and that on [53 Ariz. 164] October 13, 1938, the last day of that period, he was sentenced for the robbery to which he pleaded guilty on October 14, 1933. According to the record he was given an opportunity...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keller v. Superior Court In and For Maricopa County, No. 1
...subsequent decisions, Pina v. State, 100 Ariz. 47, 410 P.2d 658 (1966); Haney v. Eyman, 97 Ariz. 289, 399 P.2d 905 (1965); In re Johnson, 53 Ariz. 161, 87 P.2d 107 (1939); Brooks v. State, Supra; Rodgers v. State, 5 Ariz.App. 429, 427 P.2d 563 (1967), and would appear to be dispositive of t......
-
Johnson v. State ex rel. Eyman, No. 2
...338] Page 300 must be accomplished during the probationary period. Haney v. Eyman, 97 Ariz. 289, 292, 399 P.2d 905 (1965); In re Johnson, 53 Ariz. 161, 87 P.2d 107 (1939); In re Keene, 47 Ariz. 191, 54 P.2d 791 (1936). In the instant case, the trial court did both during the required period......
-
Pina v. State, No. 8719
...which petitioner can be resentenced expired on February 9, 1965. Haney v. Eyman, 97 Ariz. 289, 399 P.2d 905; In re Johnson, 53 Airz. 161, 87 P.2d 107; Brooks v. State, 51 Ariz. 544, 78 P.2d 498, 117 A.L.R. The sentence and commitment of the Superior Court of Maricopa County is vacated and s......
-
Yokley v. Belaski, No. 92-1149
...1935 or 1937. The term "calendar year" undoubtedly applies just as much to a leap year as it does to any other year. Johnson v. Arizona, 53 Ariz. 161, 87 P.2d 107, 109 (1939). See also Arizona v. Rodriguez, 153 Ariz. 182, 735 P.2d 792, 796 (1987) (use of the word "years" included leap years......
-
Keller v. Superior Court In and For Maricopa County, No. 1
...subsequent decisions, Pina v. State, 100 Ariz. 47, 410 P.2d 658 (1966); Haney v. Eyman, 97 Ariz. 289, 399 P.2d 905 (1965); In re Johnson, 53 Ariz. 161, 87 P.2d 107 (1939); Brooks v. State, Supra; Rodgers v. State, 5 Ariz.App. 429, 427 P.2d 563 (1967), and would appear to be dispositive of t......
-
Johnson v. State ex rel. Eyman, No. 2
...338] Page 300 must be accomplished during the probationary period. Haney v. Eyman, 97 Ariz. 289, 292, 399 P.2d 905 (1965); In re Johnson, 53 Ariz. 161, 87 P.2d 107 (1939); In re Keene, 47 Ariz. 191, 54 P.2d 791 (1936). In the instant case, the trial court did both during the required period......
-
Pina v. State, No. 8719
...which petitioner can be resentenced expired on February 9, 1965. Haney v. Eyman, 97 Ariz. 289, 399 P.2d 905; In re Johnson, 53 Airz. 161, 87 P.2d 107; Brooks v. State, 51 Ariz. 544, 78 P.2d 498, 117 A.L.R. The sentence and commitment of the Superior Court of Maricopa County is vacated and s......
-
Yokley v. Belaski, No. 92-1149
...1935 or 1937. The term "calendar year" undoubtedly applies just as much to a leap year as it does to any other year. Johnson v. Arizona, 53 Ariz. 161, 87 P.2d 107, 109 (1939). See also Arizona v. Rodriguez, 153 Ariz. 182, 735 P.2d 792, 796 (1987) (use of the word "years" included leap years......