Case ID: pr_4/html/0037-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ex Parte Cloy.
    Application for a writ of Habeas Corpus.
    No. 13.
    Decided June 18, 1903.
    Commitment — Defects.—A commitment for the imprisonment of an accused person which is not authorized by the judgment for the execution whereof it is issued and does not accord therewith-, is substantially defective and therefore void. *
    STATEMENT OP THE CASE.
    From the evidence taken it appears that by an order of the District Court of San Juan, a commitment was issued on June 8, 1903, to the warden of the jail of this city, directing him to take into his custody the accused, John Cloy, convicted of petit larceny and sentenced to six months imprisonment in jail in default of payment of the fine, and costs, the amount thereof not being, stated, while the judgment rendered by the aforesaid court on the same day, to-wit, on June 8, 1903, shows that J^ohn Cloy was convicted of an offense included in section 438 of the Penal Code, for which he was sentenced to he imprisoned in jail for the period of six months with costs.
    
      Messrs. Anderson and Robbins, for petitioner.
    
      Mr. del Toro, Fiscal, for the People.
   Opinion of the Court.

The commitment issued for the imprisonment of John Cloy and the judgment giving rise thereto, do not agree, for according to the former, John Cloy was convicted of petit larceny which, under section 431 of the Penal Code, .is punishable by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in jail, not exceeding one year, or both, at the discretion of the court, while .said judgment convicts John Cloy of a crime included in section 438 of said Code, it being therefore clear that the commitment is substantially defective because, while issued for the execution of the judgment rendered against John Cloy, it does not agree with the text of said judgment and, moreover, aforesaid commitment, considering the terms in which it is written, is not authorized by the judgment for ..the execution whereof it was issued.

The commitment in question being substantially defective, and not authorized by any provision of the judgment in which it originates, John Cloy should be discharged pursuant to paragraphs 3 and 6 of section 483 of the Code of Criminal Prochdure, and his bail hon'd cancelled. The discharge of John Cloy is hereby ordered, and also the cancellation of the bond furnished by him for the purposes of the habeas corpus proceedings.

Chief Justice Quiñones, and Justices Hernández, Figueras and MacLeary concurred.

Mr. Justice Sulzbacher did not sit at the hearing of this case.