Case Name: In the Matter of the Application of ERNEST G. BOOTH for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
Court: District Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1919-12-09
Citations: 44 Cal. App. 660
Docket Number: Crim. No. 882
Parties: In the Matter of the Application of ERNEST G. BOOTH for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports
Volume: 44
Pages: 660–661

Head Matter:
[Crim. No. 882.
First Appellate District, Division One.
December 9, 1919.]
In the Matter of the Application of ERNEST G. BOOTH for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.
[l] Habeas Corpus—Previous Presentation op Question on Appeal Former Adverse Decision Final.-—Where the precise question presented by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus has been considered on an appeal from the judgment and decided adversely to the petitioner, the petition will be denied.
APPLICATION for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Denied.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Ernest Gr. Booth, in pro. per., for Petitioner.

Opinion:
THE COURT.
This is an application for a writ of hateas corpus. The petitioner, who is confined in the California state prison at San Quentin, was sentenced by the superior court, in and for the county of Butte, on Septem ber 24, 1917, "for the indeterminate term of one to fourteen years, ' ' after having entered a plea of guilty to the crime of forgery, committed on the eighteenth day of June, 1917, before the indeterminate sentence law of this state went into effect. Thereafter, and pursuant to the personal request of the petitioner, the court made an order for his return into court, to the end that a legal judgment might be pronounced and entered in the case, following the procedure laid down in In the Matter of the Application of Charles Lee for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, 177 Cal. 690, [171 Pac. 958]. The defendant was, on the twenty-second day of March, sentenced to serve a term of five years in the state penitentiary at San Quentin. The defendant thereupon in open court gave notice of, and thereafter perfected, an appeal from the judgment. [1] The precise questions, presented by this petition, were considered by the district court of appeal for the third appellate district and were decided adversely to the appellant. (People v. Booth, 37 Cal. App. 650, [174 Pac. 685].)
The petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is, therefore, denied.