Court Opinion

ID: 9540376
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:15:16.898682+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:09.153906
License: Public Domain

THE COURT
In the application for a rehearing, it is argued that the accusation is sufficient because it alleges that *262the defendant, “being a person required to register under the provisions of See. 52.38 to 52.43 inclusive of the Los Angeles Municipal Code who, changed his place of residence, stopping place and living quarters, did wilfully and unlawfully fail within 48 hours after such change to notify the Chief of Police of the address of his new residence, stopping place and living quarters in the same manner and with the same detailed information as in required in the filing of the original statements under the provisions of See. 52.39 of said- code.” It is contended that this complies with section 1426 of the Penal Code. The latter section provides that the alleged complaint must set forth “the offense charged, with such particulars of time, place, person and property as to enable the defendant to understand distinctly the character of the offense complained of and to answer the complaint” or “it may be in the words of the enactment describing the offense.” This section, in effect, is the equivalent of section 952 of the Penal Code, although perhaps more specific. The complaint falls far short of these elementary requirements.
It is also contended that habeas corpus is not available in the circumstance, citing numerous cases. Section 4b of article VI of the California Constitution, and article I, section 9 of the United States Constitution determine the authority and duty of the courts with regard to habeas corpus.