In re Sabatino
Filed2/15/07 In re Sabatino CA5
NOT TO BEPUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CaliforniaRules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing orrelying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, exceptas specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified forpublication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OFAPPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATEDISTRICT
| In re | F051639 |
|
CARMEN SABATINO,
On Habeas Corpus.
|
(Stanislaus Super. Ct. No. 1061284)
OPINION
|
THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Carmen Sabatino, in pro. per., forPetitioner.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R.Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, Carlos A. Martinez andMathew Chan, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
STATEMENT OFTHE CASE AND FACTS
In 2003, petitioner was charged with a number offelonies including theft. The case went to trial in 2006. On May 24, 2006,the court declared a mistrial andscheduled the resetting of a jury trial for June 29, 2006. At that time, thecourt ordered petitioner to submit to being booked and released at the men'sjail prior to June 29, 2006.[1] Petitioner was warned that, if he failed to do so he would be held in contemptof court. According to petitioner, he attempted to follow this order but wasrejected by the jail because they did not have the necessary paperwork. Petitioner states that the trial court dismissed his case on July 12, 2006.
On August 10, 2006, the trial court noted thatpetitioner still had not been booked in county jail.
On November 3, 2006, the court issued an orderto show cause as to why petitioner should not be held in contempt for willfuldisobedience of court orders including his failure to appear to be booked andfingerprinted at the county jail. The order to show cause stated â€
| Description | In 2003, petitioner was charged with a number of felonies including theft. The case went to trial in 2006. On May 24, 2006,the court declared a mistrial and scheduled the resetting of a jury trial for June 29, 2006. At that time, the court ordered petitioner to submit to being booked and released at the men's jail prior to June 29, 2006. Petitioner was warned that, if he failed to do so he would be held in contempt of court. According to petitioner, he attempted to follow this order but was rejected by the jail because they did not have the necessary paperwork. Petitioner states that the trial court dismissed his case on July 12, 2006. Preremptory writ of prohibition and/or mandate issued. |
| Rating |
