In Re Tartar, 1 Cal. App. 2d 400

The Court.

Petitioner was on January 2, 1930, convicted ‍​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​​​​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‍of the crime of burglary in the second degree. The information also charged petitioner with having suffered two prior convictions. Following his conviction of the crime of burglary as above stated he was adjudged to ‍​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​​​​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‍be an habitual criminal and committed to the state prison at Folsom. [1] The information failed to allege petitioner had served any term for the prior convictions, which is pre-requisite to holding petitioner to be ‍​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​​​​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‍an habitual criminal. (People v. Dawson, 210 Cal. 366 [292 P. 267].)

However, the petition is premature, for the punishment of burglary of the second degree is one year to fifteen years (Pen. Code, sec. 461), ‍​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​​​​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‍and it is apparent petitioner has not yet served the term for which he was legally committed.

Writ denied.

Case Details

Case Name: In Re Tartar

Court Name: California Court of Appeal

Date Published: Oct 13, 1934

Citations: 1 Cal. App. 2d 400; Crim. No. 1345

Docket Number: Crim. No. 1345

Court Abbreviation: Cal. Ct. App.