WILLIE JAMES KING, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is fatally defective if no respondent is named or served, and if the petitioner does not claim entitlement to immediate release.
Appellant sought a writ of habeas corpus from the district court, which was denied. The appellant is in custody under two sentences.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal in forma pauperis with appointed counsel in this court from an order of the district court denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See in this connection People v. King, 30 Cal.Rptr. 44 (1963), affirmed as to King, 32 Cal.Rptr. 825, 384 P. 2d 153 (1963) cert. den. 379 U.S. 865, 85 S.Ct. 134, 13 L.Ed.2d 69 (1964).
We affirm for two reasons.
1. There is no individually named respondent to whom any writ might issue. The party under whose custody the prisoner is detained has not been named, or served. This is a fatal defect. Morehead v. State of California, 339 F. 2d 170, 171 (9th Cir. 1964).
2. Appellant does not prove or claim he is presently entitled to release from detention, even should one of his present two sentences be held illegal. This is a fatal defect. McNally v. Hill, 293 U.S. 131, 55 S.Ct. 24, 79 L.Ed. 238 (1934); Collins v. Klinger, 9th Cir., December 2, 1965, 353 F. 2d 731; Wells v. People, 352 F. 2d 439 (9th Cir. 1965); Roberts v. Crouse, 350 F. 2d 299, 300 (10th Cir. 1965).
We need not reach the remaining two points sought to be heard — namely the alleged illegality of the wife’s consent to the search, and the effect on King of the decision of the California Supreme Court with respect to Mackey, in People v. King, et al., supra.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Limmie West, III v. State OF La., 478 F.2d 1026 (5th Cir. 1973)
-
Ashley v. The State OF Wash., 394 F.2d 125 (9th Cir. 1968)
-
Amos Marshall Arketa v. Wilson, 373 F.2d 582 (9th Cir. 1967)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McNALLY v. Hill, 293 U.S. 131 (U.S. 1934)
- Morehead v. State OF Cal., 339 F.2d 170 (9th Cir. 1964)
- Little v. United States, 379 U.S. 834 (U.S. 1964)
- Wells v. The People OF the State OF Cal., 352 F.2d 439 (9th Cir. 1965)
- Roberts v. Crouse, 350 F.2d 299 (10th Cir. 1965)
- Collins v. Klinger, 353 F.2d 731 (9th Cir. 1965)