Case Name: CHARLOTTE A. WHITNEY, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, etc., et al., Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1920-01-26
Citations: 182 Cal. 114
Docket Number: S. F. No. 9356
Parties: CHARLOTTE A. WHITNEY, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ALAMDA COUNTY, etc., et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 182
Pages: 114–115

Head Matter:
[S. F. No. 9356.
In Bank.
January 26, 1920.]
CHARLOTTE A. WHITNEY, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ALAMDA COUNTY, etc., et al., Respondents.
Prohibition—Prevention of Trial of Criminal Action—When not AvaHjAble.—Prohibition is not available to prevent the superior court from trying the petitioner for a public offense, where there is no merit in the claim that the act under which the petitioner is being prosecuted is invalid as being in violation of provisions of the federal and state constitutions, and no other point is made going to the jurisdiction of the court. ,
Criminal Law—Filing of Information Without Previous Commitment—Remedy.—The remedy where an information is filed in the superior court without a previous commitment by a magistrate is by motion to set aside the information on that ground, with a right to review of the action of the trial court on an appeal from the judgment.
Id.—Sufficiency of Information—Matter not Reviewable Prohibition.—Objections to the sufficiency of an information to state a public offense will not be inquired into on an application for a writ of prohibition to prevent the trial of the petitioner.
1. Nature of writ of prohibition; issuance and effect, note, 111 Am. St. Rep. 930-978.
Issuance of writ of prohibition on application of defendant in criminal case as ground of lack of jurisdiction in trial court, note, 18 Ann. Cas. 263.
APPLICATION for Writ of Prohibition to prevent the Superior Court from trying the petitioner for a public offense.
Denied.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
J. E. Pemberton for Petitioner.

Opinion:
THE COURT.
This is an application for a writ of prohibition. We see no merit in the claim that the act under which petitioner is being prosecuted is invalid as being in violation of provisions of our federal and state constitutions.
No other point made goes to the jurisdiction of the superior court, and consequently prohibition is not available to petitioner. The remedy where an information is filed in the superior court without a previous commitment by a magistrate is by motion to set aside the information on that ground (Pen. Code, sec. 995 et scq.), with a right to review of the action of the trial court on an appeal from the judgment. The objections to the sufficiency of the information to state a public offense fall within the rule announced in In' re Ruef, 150 Cal. 665, [89 Pac. 605]. We express no opinion on the merits of the claims made 'by petitioner in regard to these matters.
The application for a writ of prohibition is denied.
Angellotti, C. J., Lawlor, J., Olney, J., Lennon, J., Shaw,. J., and Wilbur, J., concurred.