White v. Wilson
Decision Date | 19 July 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 22210.,22210. |
Citation | 399 F.2d 596 |
Parties | Louis C. WHITE, Appellant, v. Lawrence E. WILSON, Warden, San Quentin Prison, Tamal, California, State of California, et al., Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Louis C. White, in pro. per.
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., Derald E. Granberg, William D. Stein, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for appellees.
Before JERTBERG and MERRILL, Circuit Judges, and ROGER D. FOLEY, District Judge.*
Appellant appeals from an order of the District Court denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2253.
The district court issued a certificate of probable cause and authorized appeal to be taken in forma pauperis.
Appellant is in custody of the State of California. He was arrested on November 3, 1961, and charged with the offense of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to commit murder California Penal Code § 217. Following preliminary examination in the Municipal Court, an information was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Alameda, charging a violation of California Penal Code § 217. The information also charged that he was convicted in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Contra Costa, in 1946, of the offense of a felony, to wit: manslaughter, and in pursuance of said conviction, he served a term in the California State Prison at San Quentin, a penal institution. On his arraignment appellant appeared with counsel, pleaded not guilty to the main charge of assault with a deadly weapon, and stood mute on the charge of a prior conviction. Later, in open court, in the absence of the jury, appellant admitted the prior conviction.
Appellant's trial before a jury commenced on January 22, 1962. He was found guilty of the lesser included offense of assault with a deadly weapon California Penal Code § 245.
On February 16, 1962, appellant was sentenced to the State Prison for the term prescribed by law. An appeal from the judgment of conviction was taken to the Court of Appeal for the State of California, for the First Appellate District. On January 29, 1963, Division 3 of that court affirmed the judgment. See People v. White, 212 Cal. App.2d 464, 28 Cal.Rptr. 67 (1963).
On January 9, 1967, appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the district court. An order to show cause was issued and appellee filed a return to that order, to which return appellant filed a traverse. With the return to the order to show cause, appellee lodged a copy of the reporter's transcript and supplement thereof of the trial in the state court. Attached as exhibits to the return are the following:
(a) Certified copy of the Clerk's Transcript of the proceedings held in the state court;
(b) Certified copies of the proceedings in 1946 in the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Contra Costa, at the time appellant pleaded guilty to the offense of manslaughter, and at the time of his sentencing;
(c) Reporter's transcript of appellant's confession to the 1946 offense.
On this appeal, appellant attacks his conviction on various grounds, five of which were urged in the district court and were rejected in the following manner:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brangan v. Commonwealth
...is not constitutionally excessive merely because a defendant is financially unable to satisfy the requirement"); White v. Wilson , 399 F.2d 596, 598 (9th Cir. 1968) ("The mere fact that petitioner may not have been able to pay the bail does not make it excessive."); Hodgdon v. United States......
-
Mendia v. Garcia
...However, “[t]he mere fact that [a plaintiff] may not have been able to pay the bail does not make it excessive.” White v. Wilson , 399 F.2d 596, 598 (9th Cir.1968). Moreover, it does not appear the detainer affected the amount of Plaintiff's bail itself. The state court set Plaintiff's bail......
-
State v. Adair
...7 Ariz.App. 155, 436 P.2d 933 (1968). Generally the right to a speedy trial is waived unless it is promptly asserted. White v. Wilson, 399 F.2d 596 (9th Cir.1968). See also Chapman v. United States,376 F.2d 705, cert. denied 389 U.S. 881, 88 S.Ct. 119, 19 L.Ed.2d 174 (2d The right to a spee......
-
Owens v. Cal. Dep't Of Mental Health
...rendered moot by his conviction. See Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481-82, 102 S. Ct. 1181, 71 L. Ed. 2d 353 (1982); White v. Wilson, 399 F.2d 596, 598 (9th Cir. 1968); see also Ewing v. Smelosky, 2010 WL 4794030, *8 n.17 (CD. Cal. Oct. 15, 2010) (excessive bail claim not cognizable in § 22......