*1 property right The here tinguished from the case at bar. property the defendant or separate either the involved was It could community property spouses. both. Legislature separate property The defined to exclude has so category. Legislature has also declared that from that community separate property is property all not defined as all, property. the court that all does not mean Now holds was not commu- and declares in effect that cause action nity statutory property definitions include all property. The acquired by spouses. description or whatever owned certainly not included fund here involved is within community separate property and is therefore definition property. justification setting nought
I can see no at decision support Zaragosa and other cases cited therein case Appeal District, First thereof. The District Court affirmed the a well considered Two, Division opinion Dooling reported in 296 authored Mr. Justice opinion P.2d 896. For the reasons in that stated authority Zaragosa effect, to like I and other cases language of as heretofore plain would adhere to the the statute applied by judgment. this court affirm the No. In Bank. Oct.
[Crim. 1956.] Corpus. BAILLEAUX, R. on Habeas PAUL *2 Bailleaux, pro. per., Paul R. and Kroninger, Robert H. appointment by Supreme Court, under for Petitioner. Attorney Brown, General, Edmund G. and Clarence A. Attorney General, Respondent. Assistant for Linn, By this SHENK, corpus, the writ of habeas J. prison. Paul Bailleaux seeks his release Folsom R. respondent has filed return. Issues of fact warden ordinarily require raised which would a reference. order necessity proceeding to obviate the for such a counsel filed certain documents and and stipulation joined agreed in a of facts in which it have stipulation and the disclose all documents may disposed that matter of on the material facts presented. thus record September, robbery- petitioner was convicted of degree the first Quentin and sentenced Prison San prescribed
the term law. In 1942 he was released San Quentin subject on to the parole, terms and conditions set forth in the given leave” “ticket him. On October 1943, the Chief Parole Officer of of California sub- report mitted Board of Prison Terms Paroles (the predecessor charging Authority), of the Adult parole by committing an armed had violated his robbery Washington. report described robbery circumstances and recommended that the parole be revoked and that he be returned San tioner’s eligible Quentin “at he for release or such time as will Penitentiary.” Washington from the November, suspended petitioner’s parole 1943, the board charges investigation officer’s pending custody to that he be and returned to abide ordered retaken the further order of board. Washington from the
When attempted to He was taken prison extradite him. *3 by custody of extradition issued pursuant into to a warrant applied to the Washington. of He then United the Governor of Washington, District the Eastern District States Court, the Federal hereinafter called Division, Southern January 1949, that court corpus. 17, On a writ of habeas application directing and granting order entered an Authority peti- to release the Adult agent of California custody. from he released this order was Pursuant to tioner. Oregon. of petitioner went Subsequently the Oregon Quentin. San 1954, he was returned May, charges of hearing a on Authority held The Adult petitioner’s parole was August 6, 1954, the on violation, and revoked. of is the order primary contention petitioner’s and dis- corpus of habeas issuing a writ the Federal Court of right of the judicata of the issue is res charging him him. reimprison judgment a accorded and credit Full faith Gottlieb, 165, 170 305 (Stoll U.S. v. court. the federal of v. Bank Farnum ; Hancock Nat. 134, 83 L.Ed. S.Ct. 104] [59 ; Mueller 506, 44 L.Ed. S.Ct. 619] 641-642 640, [20 176 U.S. Code Civ. 961]; 188, 205 P.2d Co., 21 Cal.2d [130 v. Elba Oil effect has the same judgment a 1908.) Such Proc., § (Bank a federal court. in would as of this state courts of
261
McLaughlin
America v.
Land &
Co., Cal.App.2d
Livestock
40
620,
607];
P.2d
626-627
29 Cal.Jur.2d
pp. 288-
303,
[105
§
289.)
the federal jurisdiction,
inas
the courts of
California,
of
prevents
the doctrine
relitiga
tion
by
judgment
determined
issues
a final
in prior
action
parties. (United
between the same
States v. Munsingwear, Inc.,
340
104,
U.S. 36
36];
S.Ct.
95 L.Ed.
[71
Southern Pac. R.
168
1
States,
Co. v. United
18,
U.S.
S.Ct.
“The above entitled cause on hearing before day of January, Court on 17th appearing person by and his attorney, Toner, A.W. and Ryan Massey, Yard respondent, appearing Jane Attorney Dowdle, Washing- Assistant General having ton, testimony and the Court heard the of the fully being and matter, tioner advised now finds that being the said detained agent Authority of the California Adult violation rights justice and he fugitive constitutional is not a duly discharged California but has been respondents should be freed from the authority. agents said Adjudged “Now Therefore Considered, Ordered, It Is and Decreed: That the said for habeas hereby is and it granted, and the same allowed is further *4 respondent petitioner release the ordered that said forth- with.” Washington parties proceeding to essentially
The those now before this court—the the same as The Federal held that California. obliga- been released his had longer subject to was no tions the state and terms and is parole. of his If that res judicata, conditions 262 Authority revoking
the 1954 order the Adult parole tioner’s of no avail. was respondent contends that the Federal Court erred no longer subject was from the and conditions California court. terms judgment, on a is collateral attack final and such an This only under limited permitted circumstances. attack is One entering the court is where was circumstance (Williams jurisdiction. Carolina, v. North without State of 1092, 1577, 89 L.Ed. 157 A.L.R 1366]; 325 226 U.S. S.Ct. [65 ; Pennoyer Thompson 95 714 L.Ed. v. Neff, v. U.S. [24 565] 897]; Gagnon (U.S.) Co., 18 457 L.Ed. Wall. Whitman, [21 448 Inc., 446]; 45 Cal.2d Inn, v. Desert Inc. Nevada [289 Accordingly respondent Proc., 1916.) asserts Code Civ. § jurisdiction without the Federal Court was question is to be determined accord petitioner. This (Sherrer Sherrer, v. 334 law. U.S. 343 ance with federal [68 1 1429, ; A.L.R.2d 1087, 1091, 92 L.Ed. Adam 1355] S.Ct. 454, 649]; 82 L.Ed. Gagnon 59 S.Ct. Saenger, v. 303 U.S. [58 448; Inn, 45 Inc., supra, Cal.2d Inc. v. Nevada Desert Co., Package Mfg. v. 166 513 Calhoun, Co. Cal. Cellulose [137 P. ground courts collateral attack
In the federal
permitted
not
at
jurisdiction
unless the
will
of lack of
showing
affirmative
tacking
makes an
issue
party
entering
judg
in the court
jurisdiction
litigated
was not
jurisdiction
litigated
issue of
was
If the
attack.
ment under
against
determination thereon
final
court,
in the first
(Davis Davis,
v.
We that judgment conclude of the Federal Court is res judicata; reimprisonment that the was and that he is unlawful, custody. entitled to be released from discharged. Gibson, J., J., Spence C. Traynor, Schauer, J., J., and McComb, J., concurred.
CARTER, J. I concurin the result reached in the ma jority opinion directly my inasmuch as it is in line with (1951), dissent in In re Kimler
902].
judgment
the Kimler
ease a
a Missouri court was
involved.
corpus by
Kimler was
on habeas
majority
Missouri court and a
of this court there said: “The
corpus]
habeas
declared that ‘...
[of
the detention
sufficient
petitioner appearing,
cause
of said
Corpus
ordered . . .
of Habeas
that
Writ
be sustained
permanent,
made
. .
.
. be . . dis
charged
imprisonment
and detention
the cause
(Italics
majority
added.)”
aforesaid.’
A
of this court
specifically
“discharge
held
in
there
that Kimler’s
habeas
present proceed
Missouri is not res
ing.”
majority
the Kimler
case a
this court relied
upon
Hoffmeister,
195],*
State v.
*This case was decided of Missouri release prisoner because held was entitled was majority appeared. But a no sufficient detention cause not entitled this court held the Missouri Missouri court though faith to full and credit even its aware of been well the Kimler ease have and circum- together facts the Hoffmeister case with *6 this court knew In other words stances involved therein. the Supreme of Missouri held than better what the Court Messina, (See parte also Ex Supreme of Missouri did! Mo.App. 1234 S.W.2d (p. 579) “The dis- my case : I said dissent to the Kimler res charge of must be treated as Kimler Missouri longer is, that there is mentioned, that issue above arising from his imprison Kimler any for California basis to a here, entitled conviction and therefore he is majority thereof, held, court, or a proceeding.” in this This discharge on however, in Kimler’s habeas the Kimler case that judicata. This Missouri court res shows, that despite opinion that the case without fact adjudicated by doubt, a of that merits were shadow a blithely majority Missouri court. In its credit the federal ignored the full faith and clause both Here, majority has, however, the and state Constitutions. change are apparently, had a of heart because we told that credit must be accorded a full faith and judicata prevents court; federal that the doctrine of relitigation a in a of issues determined final prior parties. action between the same other words— wholeheartedly agree. However, I enough. With this once adjudicated previously case and the Kimler case both diametrically opposite results on the merits with reached only dissimilarity by majority of this court. The between prior judgment here a federal court is two concerned; prior judgment in the Kimler case a of a sister was concerned. Otherwise there is no difference. The state specifically court in the Kimler case noted Missouri are not justify “facts circumstances sufficient to extradition surrender and the State California”; specifically the federal court the case bar at “fugitive justice was not a found duly discharged of California been but has respondents and should freed authority.” agents of said It is difficult be more similar how two eases could inasmuch see as this give judgments full faith and credit court government. the federal of both sister states and the courts though opinion I that the conclusion am reached Even reached in the Kimler I case, in conflict with here is herein to concur in the result reached because happy am it is sound law. rehearing
Respondent’s petition for a was denied No Traynor, J., J., J., Schauer, Spence, vember opinion granted. should were of the 2, 1956.] 24046. In Nov. A. No. Bank. [L. JOHNSTON,
Estate of ANNA M. Deceased. ALFRED R. JOHNSTON, Appellant. Executor, etc.,