Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

In the Matter of the Application of RUSSELL SANDERS for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

THE COURT. —

It appears that the applicant was delivered to the custody of the warden of the state prison at San Quentin on the sixth day of April, 1913, to serve a term of eight years, which period, he contends, will expire on the sixth day of April next. The sole ground for the application is that the petitioner has "been given to know and understand" that the warden at the state prison will not discharge him from custody and restore him to his liberty until a date some time later than the day upon which he contends he is lawfully entitled to be discharged.

[1] There are two reasons why we cannot entertain this petition at this time: First, we are not in a position to assume that the warden of the state prison will not act in accordance with law and discharge the petitioner, if it be, as alleged in his petition, that he is entitled to a discharge on the sixth day of April, 1921. The second is that the term for which the petitioner was sentenced has not actually expired, and until it has, the petitioner is not illegally detained. ( Ex parte Ross, 82 Cal. 109, [22 P. 1086].)

Application for the writ is denied.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

IN RE SANDERS
(Apr 4, 1921)