DocketNumber: Docket No. 1711.
Citation Numbers: 269 P. 734, 93 Cal. App. 454, 1928 Cal. App. LEXIS 682
Judges: Thompson
Filed Date: 8/6/1928
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/3/2024
The petitioner in this case was arrested on May 7, 1928, charged with possession of intoxicating liquors in violation of the Wright Act [Stats. 1921, p. 79]. On May 11, 1928, he plead guilty to this charge and by judgment of the municipal court was ordered confined in the city jail for a period of thirty days or in lieu thereof to pay a fine of $300. On May 10th, after his arrest on the misdemeanor charge, complaint was filed against the petitioner charging him with the possession of a still, a felony, and he was taken from the city jail to the county jail, where he was confined until July 16, *Page 455 1928, on which date he was granted probation, he having been tried and found guilty of the latter offense on June 20th.
[1] It will be observed that petitioner was confined in the county jail for a period of sixty-seven days, and since his release from the county jail has been confined in the city jail, making a total of eighty-one days' confinement to the time the petition herein was filed. It is petitioner's contention that his detention in the county jail subsequent to May 11th, the day on which he was sentenced on the misdemeanor charge and on which day the commitment issued, is in satisfaction of that judgment. Almost the same situation was presented to us in the case of Inre Ahumada, ante, p. 152 [
The writ is granted.
Craig, Acting P.J., and Hazlett, J., pro tem., concurred.