IN RE KIRK, 63 Cal.2d 761 (1965)

408 P.2d 962, 48 Cal.Rptr. 186

Docket No. Crim. 9195.Supreme Court of California. In Bank.
December 23, 1965.

Page 762

PROCEEDING in habeas corpus to secure release from custody. Writ granted with directions.

Loy Rollin Kirk, in pro. per., and Robert N. Beechinor, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Petitioner.

Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General, Doris H. Maier, Assistant Attorney General, Edsel W. Haws and Richard K. Turner, Deputy Attorneys General, for Respondents.

PETERS, J.

This case presents the same problem involved in In re Estrada, ante, p. 740 [48 Cal.Rptr. 172, 408 P.2d 948], this day decided. That problem, as applied to this case, is whether petitioner is entitled to the benefits of a statute ameliorating the punishment passed after the criminal act was committed but before the judgment of conviction became final. In the Estrada
case, supra, we held that an accused man was entitled to the benefits of the amendatory act. Under the rule there announced petitioner in the instant case is also entitled to the benefit of the amendatory act.

At the time of rendition of the judgment of conviction for issuing the checks, subdivision (b) of section 476a of the Penal Code provided that, if the total amount of all checks that the defendant is convicted of issuing does not exceed $50,

Page 763

the offense is punishable only by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year. Under subdivision (a) of the section the penalty for other violations of the section is imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year or in the state prison for not more than 14 years. Prior to the affirmance of the conviction by the District Court of Appeal in April of 1964, subdivision (b) was amended by increasing the amount from $50 to $100. Under the present statute a person such as petitioner who is convicted of issuing checks totaling $75 would be subject to imprisonment in the county jail only and would not be subject to imprisonment in state prison.

The problem is thus precisely the same as the one involved in the Estrada case, supra. The statute imposing the penalty for issuing the checks was amended prior to final judgment by ameliorating the punishment. Under the rule announced in that case the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of the amendatory statute.

Petitioner is not entitled to release as long as he is held under valid judgments of conviction for his other crimes. He is entitled to have the judgment of conviction for issuing checks corrected, but he must complete his terms of imprisonment for the robberies before he is entitled to his release.

The writ is granted. The District Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, is directed to recall its remittitur in People v. Kirk, 2 Crim. 8447, to vacate its judgment, and to reverse the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County with directions to enter judgment in accordance with the views expressed herein and after such entry to return petitioner to the prison authorities to complete his terms for robbery.

Traynor, C.J., Tobriner, J., Peek, J., and Van Dyke, J. pro tem.,[*] concurred.

BURKE, J.

I dissent for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion i In re Estrada, ante, page 740 [48 Cal.Rptr. 172, 408 P.2d 948].

McComb, J., concurred.

Page 764