Lozoya, Application of, Cr. 5826
| Decision Date | 10 December 1956 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 5826 |
| Citation | 304 P.2d 156,146 Cal.App.2d 702 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Application of Refugio Gonzalez LOZOYA for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. |
David C. Marcus, Los Angeles, for petitioner.
Petitioner has applied to this court for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he is unlawfully imprisoned by reason of the fact that the complaint issued against him and under which he is detained charges a crime as to which he has been heretofore tried and acquitted.
The relevant facts are: By a complaint filed in the municipal court of the Los Angeles judicial district, petitioner is charged with violation of section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code, in that he did, on the 17th of May, 1956, willfully and unlawfully have in his possession marijuana. Prior to the issuance of the complaint and petitioner's arrest thereunder, he was indicted by a federal grand jury. The indictment returned by the grand jury was in two counts. In the first count it was charged that on May 17 he unlawfully transferred nine and one-half pounds of marijuana without obtaining a written order on a form issued for that purpose by the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States. By Count II he was charged with being a transferee of marijuana within the meaning of section 474(a) of Title 26 United States Code, and having knowingly and unlawfully acquired and obtained approximaately nine and one-half pounds of marijuana without having paid the transfer tax imposed by said section, and that said transaction took place on the 17th of May, 1956.
To this indictment petitioner pleaded not guilty, and upon trial was acquitted on both counts. He alleges in his petition here that the transactions alleged in the federal indictment are the same transactions with which he is charged by the complaint under which he is now charged by the People of this state, and that therefore he has been once in jeopardy and under the provisions of sections 656, 793, 794, and 1023 of the Penal Code of this state his acquittal in the federal court is a bar to the prosecution of this action, and that his prosecution is in violation of his constitutional rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and article I, section 13, of the Constitution of this state.
We find it unnecessary to pass upon the question a to whether petitioner's trial question as to whether petitioner...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Williams
...form the basis of the double jeopardy forfeiture rule. (In re Harron (1923) 191 Cal. 457, 467, 217 P. 728; In re Lozoya (1956) 146 Cal.App.2d 702, 703-704, 304 P.2d 156.) No similar statutory provision exists for statute of limitations claims; the Legislature has not enacted one in the 60 y......
-
People v. Batts
...jeopardy claims on appeal, even though defendants did not first seek writ review to address those claims. (See In re Lozoya (1956) 146 Cal.App.2d 702, 704, 304 P.2d 156 [double jeopardy issue may be raised on appeal]); (In re McNeer (1959) 173 Cal.App.2d 530, 531-534, 343 P.2d 304 [double j......
-
People v. Belcher
...P.2d 531, cert. denied, 355 U.S. 956, 78 S.Ct. 542, 2 L.Ed.2d 532), constituted a waiver of this legal defense. (In re Lozoya (1956) 146 Cal.App.2d 702, 703--704, 304 P.2d 156.) Instead, counsel waited until the first day of trial when he moved to dismiss the information on an unspecified g......
-
People v. Blalock
...827, 91 P. 397; People v. Mims, 136 Cal.App.2d 828, 833(8), 289 P.2d 539, (hearing denied by the Supreme Court); cf. In re Lozoya, 146 Cal.App.2d 702, 704(2), 304 P.2d 156.) Applying the foregoing rules to the facts of the present case, it is apparent that defendant's claim of once in jeopa......