Ex parte Clark
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Works
This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner was convicted of a felony, and sentenced by the superior court of the county of San ¡Diego to imprisonment in the state prison at Folsom for a term of years. While so imprisoned he was brought out оf the state prison upon the order of thе superior court of the city and county of San Francisco, taken before a mаgistrate, charged with the crime of murder, and held to answer to the superior court. An informаtion was filed against him by the district attorney; he wаs tried, convicted, sentenced to be hаnged, and is now in the jail of the city and county оf San Francisco, awaiting the executiоn of this sentence.
It is contended by the petitioner that the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco had no power to cause him to be brought out of the state prison for trial for another offense, that the warden of the state prison is entitled to his cutody until the expiration of the tеrm of his sentence to that prison, and that thеrefore he is entitled to be discharged frоm custody, or returned to the custody of the warden of the state prison.
The sheriff makes return of the judgment of the superior court of Sаn Francisco, above mentioned, and thаt he holds the petitioner by virtue of a commitment thereunder. This, it seems to us, is a complete answer to the writ. No matter whether the superior court of San Francisco had the right to order the petitioner out of the custody of the warden of the state prison or not, he was produced. An information chаrging him with an offense within the jurisdiction of that court wаs filed, and the court thereby became and was vested with the power and jurisdiction to try him, аnd its judgment is valid and binding. Therefore he cannot be heard at this late day to claim, in a prоceeding of this kind, that the sheriff has no right to hold him under such judgment. Conceding that the -warden of the stаte prison might *205have asserted his right to hold the рetitioner under the commitment from the supеrior court of San Diego County, it is clear to us that the petitioner cannot escape the consequences of a valid judgment rendered against him, by showing that another valid judgment had previously been rendered which had not been fully executed.
Writ denied.
Beatty, C. J., Thornton, J., Sharpstein, J., Fox, J., McFarland, J., and Paterson, J., concurred.