Ex parte Mitchell

California Supreme Court May 28, 1886

Ex parte Mitchell, 70 Cal. 1 (Cal. 1886)

11 P. 488; 1886 Cal. LEXIS 707

Opinion of the Court

The Court.

1. The punishment authorized by section 245, Penal Code, is not excessive, cruel, or unusual within the meaning of section 6, article 1, of the constitution.

2. People v. Turner, 65 Cal. 540, to which we adhere, disposes of the second point made for petitioner.

*33. The entire judgment is not void. . That portion of it providing for imprisonment as a means of enforcing the payment of the fine is separable from the rest. The sentence to imprisonment as a punishment is in force, and the petitioner cannot now be discharged, whatever may hereafter be his rights regarding the order of imprisonment as to the fine. Whether he will be entitled to a discharge on the expiration of the two years, we indicate no opinion.

The petitioner is remanded, and the writ discharged.

Reference

Full Case Name: Ex parte ROBERT MITCHELL, on Habeas Corpus
Cited By: 10 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Criminal Law—Assault with Deadly Weapon—Punishment of— Constitutional Law. — The punishment for an assault with a deadly weapon provided for by section 245 of the Penal Code is not excessive, cruel, or unusual within the meaning of section 6 of article 1 of the constitution. Id.—Sufficiency of Verdict—Judgment—Imprisonment in State Prison. — People v. Turner, 65 Cal. 540, affirmed as to the point that where a party is informed against for an assault with intent to commit murder, and a verdict is rendered against him for an assault with a deadly weapon, the verdict is sufficient to support a judgment of imprisonment for two years in the state prison, without stating that the assault was made with the intent to commit great bodily harm. Id.—Imprisonment as Means of Enforcing Pine.—The petitioner was convicted of an assault with a deadly weapon, and sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison for two years, and to pay a fine, and to be imprisoned in the same prison one day for every dollar of the fine. Held, that conceding the portion of the judgment providing for imprisonment as a means of enforcing the fine was invalid, the sentence of imprisonment as a punishment was valid, and should he enforced.