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. The information failed to allege petitioner had served ‍​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌​​​​​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‍any term for the prior convictions, which is pre*401requisite to holding petitioner to be an habitual criminal. (People v. Dawson, 210 Cal. 366 [292 Pac. 267].)

However, the petition is premature, ‍​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌​​​​​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‍for the punishment of burglary of the second degree is one year to fifteen years (Pen. Code, see. 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; 36 P.2d 419; 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 1285; Crim. No. 1345

Docket Number: Crim. No. 1345

Court Abbreviation: Cal. Ct. App.