Court Opinion

ID: 9848916
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:29:55.883675+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:53.660917
License: Public Domain

TAYLOR, Justice
(concurring and dissenting) .
I am in agreement with the conclusion reached in this case. However, I think it unnecessary to consider the authority of the district court to impose the sixty-day incarceration in the county jail as a condition of probation. As stated in the opinion, appellant’s remedy against such incarceration was by writ sued out at the time of its imposition; and the fact of such incarceration, whether lawful or not, did not invalidate the order of probation nor deprive the district court of jurisdiction to pronounce judgment upon violation of other conditions of the probation, nor, upon termination of the period of probation, for other reasons.
The court had jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment which was ultimately entered.
Habeas corpus is not available to review prior proceedings for errors which do not affect the jurisdiction of the court, nor the validity of its judgment. Cobas v. Clapp, 79 Idaho 419, 319 P.2d 475, cert. den. 356 U.S. 941, 78 S.Ct. 785, 2 L.Ed.2d 816; Ex parte Olsen, 74 Idaho 400, 263 P.2d 388; In re Bean, 58 Idaho 797, 79 P.2d 540; In re Davis, 23 Idaho 473, 130 P. 786.
Assuming the issue as to the validity of the county jail incarceration to be properly presented in this case, I concur in the opinion of Justice McQuade thereon.