255 P. 815 | Cal. | 1927
The petitioners, Homer France and Jack Black, were convicted in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles upon two counts, each charging them with *124
the crime of burglary with explosives as defined by section
Subsequent to the twenty-first day of July, 1925, the date of the order granting said writ of habeas corpus, and on the twenty-ninth day of said month, the case of In re Wilson,
It is the contention of petitioners that the order of court made in the habeas corpus proceeding on July 21, 1925, discharging said petitioners from custody had the effect of a final judgment releasing them from imprisonment under the judgment in the first or former action against them, and accordingly said Superior Court is without any authority or jurisdiction to remand petitioners to the custody of the sheriff of said county for the purpose of delivering them to the warden of the state prison or to make any order or to take any action whatever in the first or former action against petitioners. In support of this contention the petitioners rely upon sections
Respondents disagree with this contention of petitioners. They further contend that the order of court discharging the petitioners in the habeas corpus proceeding was void for the reason that the Superior Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for said writ and, therefore, no power to grant the same for the reason that the action then pending against petitioners was on appeal to the district court of appeal, and that while said appeal was pending the said Superior Court had no jurisdiction over petitioners or in the action pending against them. This question, so far as our knowledge goes, has never been directly before the appellate courts of this state. The general rule, of course, is familiar and universally recognized that a duly perfected appeal divests the trial court of further jurisdiction of the cause in which the appeal has been taken.[1] The writ *127
of habeas corpus, however, although granted to inquire into the legality of one imprisoned in a criminal prosecution is not a proceeding in that prosecution, but, on the contrary, is an independent action instituted by the applicant therein to secure his discharge from such imprisonment (State v. Schrader,
The precise point involved herein does not appear to have received an extensive consideration by the courts of other states. However, a case involving a question somewhat similar to the one now before us was before the supreme court in the state of Colorado. In that proceeding it appeared that James Doyle was adjudged guilty of contempt of court and committed to the county jail by the district court. From this judgment of conviction he appealed to the court of appeals and applied for a supersedeas, which was denied. He then presented to the supreme court his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The latter court refused to consider such petition, holding that as the case was then on appeal to the district court of appeals the supreme court had no jurisdiction to entertain such a petition during the pendency of said appeal. In so holding the court said:
"With the case pending and undetermined in the court of appeals, can this court assume jurisdiction of this proceeding? That tribunal has obtained jurisdiction of the cause instituted there at the instance of the petitioner. The questions which he seeks to have determined in that action *128
are identical with those which he asks this court to pass upon by the proceedings instituted here; and, if this court can entertain jurisdiction of petitioner's application, it must be upon the theory that, by so doing, that of the court of appeals would be ousted, for, unless such would be the result, serious and embarrassing complications might arise. It is to prevent such difficulties and contests between courts over jurisdiction that the rule of law obtains that, where a court has obtained jurisdiction of an action, it cannot be interfered with by any other, but has the exclusive right to entertain and exercise such jurisdiction to the final determination of the cause. Works, Jur. 68; Merrill v. Lake, 16 Ohio, 373 [47 Am. Dec. 377]; Taylor
v. City of Ft. Wayne,
"The first question for determination is whether or not the Superior Court, or any judge thereof, had jurisdiction to order the issuance of this particular writ of habeas corpus. It appears from the petition for that writ that Lipsey had sued out of this court a writ of error to review the proceedings of the Criminal Court and that the judgment of that court had been by this court affirmed. It also appears that the question of the sufficiency of the verdict returned by the jury in the case in the Criminal Court was not raised by assignment of error in this court when the case was brought here and it is stated by that petition that neither Lipsey nor his attorney discovered the alleged insufficiency of the verdict until after the petition for rehearing *130
which was filed in this court had been denied. It is urged in the brief filed in the present proceeding on behalf of Lipsey, that `If the judgment of the Criminal Court is void and the Supreme Court of Illinois did not decide that such judgment was valid,habeas corpus lies.' It is true that the question as to the sufficiency of the verdict, and the validity of the judgment based thereon, was not specifically presented when the case was brought here by writ of error. It is also true that this question might then have been presented to and passed upon by this court had Lipsey seen fit to invoke the judgment of the court in reference thereto. The general rule is, when a judgment is affirmed by this court, all questions raised by the assignments of error, and all questions that might have been so raised, are to be regarded as finally adjudicated against the appellant or plaintiff in error. A judgment or decree having been affirmed by this court must be regarded as free from all error. Gould v.Sternberg,
"It is true, as contended by counsel both for respondent and for Lipsey, that Circuit and Superior Courts, and the judges of those courts, have concurrent jurisdiction with this court inhabeas corpus proceedings. That fact, however, does not authorize either of those courts, or either of such judges, to decide a question contrary to the way it has been decided by this court. When this court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, has determined a question, either of law or of fact, the matter is ended so far as the Circuit and Superior Courts, and the judges thereof, are concerned, and they may not, by reason of the fact that their jurisdiction in habeas corpus is concurrent with that of this court, overrule or review such decision of this court dealing with questions either of law or of fact. When the petition for the writ of habeas corpus was presented to Judge McEwen it appeared therefrom that the judgment in the criminal case had been affirmed by this court, which, as we have seen, was an adjudication that the judgment of conviction was a valid one, and while he had all the power and authority in a habeas corpus proceeding that is vested in any other court or judge in the state, he was without power or authority to determine that the judgment in question was *131 void, when, as a matter of law, this court had determined that it was valid."
In Ex parte Barfield (Tex. Cr. App.),
[3] It may not be necessary for us to go to the extent to which the courts in some of these cases have gone, and especially the supreme court of the state of Colorado in In re Doyle,supra. But we think there is sufficient to be found in the foregoing authorities to support this court in holding that a trial court, after an appeal from a judgment of conviction rendered by it in a criminal action has been perfected, is without authority to discharge through habeas corpus proceedings the appellant during the pendency of said appeal, for any error, defect, or other infirmity appearing or existing in the proceedings taken in said action which was or might have been legally presented to said appellate court on said appeal. There is nothing to be found in this state, nor for that matter in the courts of any other state to which our attention has been called or of which we have any knowledge, contrary to such a rule of procedure. We have not overlooked the provision of the constitution of the state investing the superior courts with power to issue writs of "habeas corpus on petition by or on behalf of any person in actual custody in the respective counties," nor the provisions of the constitution conferring upon the supreme court and the district court of appeal power to issue like writs. [4] It may be conceded that the superior courts of the state have concurrent jurisdiction with the appellate courts in habeas corpus proceedings, but this does not mean *132 that they have the power to interfere with the appellate jurisdiction of either of said last-named courts in matters pending before said appellate courts or to overrule or set aside a judgment rendered therein. It is not claimed that this could be done directly by any proceeding instituted for that purpose in the superior court, but if the last-named court has power under the constitution to discharge from custody by a writ of habeascorpus a defendant whose appeal is at the time pending before either of the appellate courts of the state, then the superior court may do indirectly that which it must be admitted it has no power to do directly. This question was considered by the supreme court of the state of Illinois in the case of People v.Superior Court, supra. The respective courts of that state are vested with jurisdiction in habeas corpus proceedings to the same extent and in like manner practically as are the courts of our state, and in determining the extent of these powers the supreme court of Illinois held that the superior courts of that state "may not, by reason of the fact that their jurisdiction inhabeas corpus is concurrent with that of this court, overrule or review" a decision of the supreme court. In that case the supreme court set aside as void a judgment of the superior court of Cook County discharging on habeas corpus a prisoner whose conviction had been previously affirmed by said supreme court.
The court in that opinion went further than it is necessary for us to go in the determination of any question before us in the present proceeding. That court held that an inferior court under its power to issue writs of habeas corpus was without jurisdiction to release from custody one imprisoned under a judgment which the supreme court of that state had determined to be valid. We are holding simply that under the power invested in the superior courts of this state to issue writs of habeascorpus they are not given the authority to invade the jurisdiction of an appellate court, and to oust said appellate court of its jurisdiction in a criminal action pending before it on appeal by discharging on habeas corpus the appellant in said action on any ground appearing upon the face of the record on appeal, and which is raised or could be raised on said appeal. *133
The failure of the courts to recognize such a rule of procedure or one similar thereto would lead to the greatest of confusion resulting often in the failure of the courts to efficiently administer the law. In passing, we might call attention to the unusual condition shown by the record in the present proceeding, which might have been avoided if the above-mentioned rule had been observed.
[5] Upon the appeal taken by the petitioners herein to the district court of appeal the very question raised in the habeascorpus proceedings before the Superior Court, resulting in the order releasing petitioners, could have been presented to, and for aught that appears in the record was considered by the district court of appeal, although no mention of it was made in the decision. There surely was no reason why it could not have been so presented. The record on appeal showed that the petitioners had been tried and convicted of the offense of burglary with explosives in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles. Therefore, the question of the jurisdiction of said court over said action and over said petitioners was plainly apparent upon the face of said record, and there was no reason why it could not have been presented and decided on said appeal. Moreover, the Schiaffino case, on the authority of which the Superior Court discharged petitioners in the habeas corpus proceedings, had been decided by the district court of appeal of the first appellate district almost six months prior to the rendition of the decision of the district court of appeal of the second appellate district affirming the judgment of conviction against petitioners. It may be that the decision in that case was not called to the attention of the latter court or that said court did not consider the question decided therein in determining petitioners' appeal, but there was nothing to have prevented petitioners from directing the court's attention to it, nor was there anything which precluded said court from considering said decision and the questions decided therein. Therefore, petitioners have no ground to complain that they had no opportunity of presenting to the district court of appeal having jurisdiction of their appeal the very question raised by them later in their habeas corpus proceedings before the superior court.
As the question was one which either was raised or might have been raised before the appellate court, it could not, *134 during the pendency of said appeal, according to the rule announced herein, be raised before the trial court in habeascorpus proceedings instituted therein for the purpose of securing petitioners' release, and the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain said proceedings during the pendency of said appeal. It follows, therefore, that the order of the trial court of date July 21, 1925, discharging petitioners was illegal and void; that said order did not deprive said court from later enforcing its judgment of conviction rendered against petitioners, and that said court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the motion of the district attorney now pending before it to remand petitioners to the custody of the sheriff for the purpose of enforcing the judgment of conviction rendered against them in said Superior Court.
As the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the habeascorpus proceedings, it becomes unnecessary for us to consider whether or not the order made therein, and purporting to discharge petitioners from custody, was a final judgment releasing them from imprisonment as provided by section
Seawell, J., Richards, J., Shenk, J., Langdon, J., Preston, J., and Waste, C.J., concurred.