Petition of Mancini

Decision Date11 April 1963
Docket NumberCr. 8742
Citation29 Cal.Rptr. 796,215 Cal.App.2d 54
PartiesPetition of Joseph J. MANCINI, for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Nicolas Ferrara, Los Angeles, for petitioner.

Harold W. Kennedy, County Counsel, Robert C. Lynch, Deputy County Counsel, for respondent.

SHINN, Presiding Justice.

Hearing has been had upon the petition and the return made by the sheriff. The record discloses that on October 19, 1961, in an action for divorce entitled 'Bernice Mancini v. Joseph J. Mancini' the court made an interim order imposing certain duties upon the parties. They were not to annoy or harass each other, to dispose of property or discuss their marital relations or make derogatory remarks about each other in the presence of the minor child; plaintiff was to have the sole use of the house and custody of the child; defendant was to have reasonable rights of visitation and under certain conditions to have the child with him at specified times to be returned to plaintiff at stated times, when defendant was not to enter the house. Defendant was ordered to pay $86 per month for child support and $1 per year for the wife's support, and was to pay certain community debts.

May 23, 1962, plaintiff filed a certification alleging that defendant was $43 in arrears in child support and accusing him of nine other violations of the order. These included acts of physical violence upon plaintiff and the minor son, five acts of breaking into the family residence, abstracting papers and several misappropriations and misuse of money. An order was issued for defendant to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt. Hearing was had, the matter was submitted and on June 29, the court made an order reading in part: 'In the matter heretofore submitted on June 14, 1962, the Court now makes the following order: The modification is denied. The Court finds that the defendant had knowledge of the order of October 19, 1961, that he had the ability to comply with the order of the Court and that he wilfully failed and refused to comply with said order. The defendant is found in contempt of Court and is ordered to return to this courtroom at 10:30 A.M. on July 26, 1962, for sentence.'

Further proceedings were continued from time to time until December 27, 1962. From the return of the sheriff it appears that on that date the court made an order entitled 'Commitment to County Jail.' The order recited that defendant had been ordered to pay plaintiff $86 per month for child support, that defendant had knowledge of the order, had had the ability to comply with the 'same', had wilfully refused to do so and that 'the same' had not been 'complied with.' It was not stated what defendant had paid and what he had failed to pay for child support. It was recited that an order had been issued requiring the defendant to appear before the court on December 27 to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt for wilfully failing to comply with the order; that the court found that defendant had the ability to comply with the order and wilfully failed to comply. Defendant was ordered to surrender himself to the sheriff at 8...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Olson v. Superior Court (People)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • June 26, 1984
    ...of the order, ability to comply with it, and conduct on the part of the accused amounting to willful violation." (In re Mancini (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 54, 56, 29 Cal.Rptr. 796.) "It is an essential element of contempt that the conduct of the accused be willful in the sense that it is inexcus......
  • Koehler v. Superior Court, A125012.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • February 5, 2010 contempt proceedings (In re Wells (1946) 29 Cal.2d 200, 201 ; Powers v. Superior Court (1967) 253 Cal.App.3d 617, 619 ; In re Mancini (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 54, 56 ), nothing can be implied in support of an adjudication of contempt (In re Scroggin (1951) 103 Cal.App.2d 281, 283 ), and the......
  • Bunyard v. Superior Court of San Diego Cnty., D062223
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • November 30, 2012
    ...should not be granted. 3. Whether the identified orders actually exist or are valid is a separate question. 4. Mother cites In re Mancini (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 54, which in turn relies on Harlan v. Superior Court (1949) 94 Cal.App.2d 902, distinguished and clarified in Signal Oil & Gas Co. ......
  • Liu, Application of
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 20, 1969
    ...sufficiency of the proceedings in support of the judgment (In re Circosta, 219 Cal.App.2d 777, 785, 33 Cal.Rptr. 514; In re Mancini, 215 Cal.App.2d 54, 56, 29 Cal.Rptr. 796; In re Ny, 201 Cal.App.2d 728, 731, 20 Cal.Rptr. 114) or of the judgment (Freeman v. Superior Court, 44 Cal.2d 533, 53......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT