Case ID: cal_188/html/0799-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "THE COURT.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[Crim. No. 2472.
    In Bank.
    May 22, 1922.]
    In the Matter of the Application of LUCIO AJURIA et al., for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.
    
       Intoxicating Liquors—Unlawful Possession—Validity of Municipal Ordinance. — Petition for a writ of habeas corpus denied on the authority of In re Polizzotto, ante, p. 410, People v. Collins, 54 Cal. App. 531, People v. Capelli, 55 Cal. App. 461, Ex parte Kinney, 53 Cal. App. 792, Ex parte Volpi, 53 Cal. App. 229, and People v. Mayen, ante, p. 237.
    APPLICATION for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to secure release from imprisonment after conviction of a violation of a municipal ordinance prohibiting the possession of intoxicating liquors.
    Denied.
    The facts are similar to those stated in the opinions in In re Polizzotto, ante, p. 410; People v. Collins, 54 Cal. App. 531; People v. Capelli, 55 Cal. App. 461; Ex parte Kinney, 53 Cal. App. 792, and Ex parte Volpi, 53 Cal. App. 229.
    W. E. Davies for Petitioners.
   THE COURT.

The petitioners are imprisoned after conviction upon a charge of violating an ordinance of the city of Marysville declaring it unlawful for any person to have in his possession any intoxicating liquors.

The complaint on which they were convicted is not presented to us and we must therefore presume that it sufficiently charges the offense. We have, heretofore, had similar attacks made upon local ordinances of this character and our decisions therein are against the petitioners on all the points presented in this case with relation to the validity of this ordinance. (See In re Polizzotto, ante, p. 410 [205 Pac. 676]; People v. Collins, 54 Cal. App. 531 [202 Pac. 344]; People v. Capelli, 55 Cal. App. 461 [203 Pac. 837]; Ex parte Kinney, 53 Cal. App. 792 [200 Pac. 967], and Ex parte Volpi, 53 Cal. App. 229 [199 Pac. 1090].)

The claim that the judgment is void because the intoxicating liquor was found on the premises without previously having obtained a search-warrant for the discovery thereof is answered by the decision in People v. Mayen, ante, p. 237 [205 Pac. 435], On the authority of these cases the petition is denied.

Shaw, C. J., Wilbur, J., Shurtleff, J., Lawlor, J., Sloane, J., and Lennon, J., concurred.