An appeal may be taken to the court of appeal by the people from a final order of a superior court made upon the return of a writ of habeas corpus discharging a defendant or otherwise granting all or any part of the relief sought, in all criminal cases, excepting criminal cases where judgment of death has been rendered, and in such cases to the Supreme Court; and in all criminal cases where an application for a writ of habeas corpus has been heard and determined in a court of appeal, either the defendant or the people may apply for a hearing in the Supreme Court. Such appeal shall be taken and such application for hearing in the Supreme Court shall be made in accordance with
rules to be laid down by the Judicial Council. If the people appeal from an order granting the discharge or release of the defendant, or petition for hearing in either the court of appeal or the Supreme Court, the defendant shall be admitted to bail or released on his own recognizance or any other conditions which the court deems just and reasonable, subject to the same limitations, terms, and conditions which are applicable to, or may be imposed upon, a defendant who is awaiting trial. If the order grants relief other than a discharge or release from custody, the trial court or the court in which the appeal or petition for hearing is pending may, upon application by the people, in its discretion, and upon such conditions as it deems just stay the execution of the order pending final determination of the matter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
48
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1951–2023 · leading case:
Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (2002).
Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (2002).
· cites it 4× “Had respondent filed the appeal provided by Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 1506 (West 2000), his application might have remained pending during the 10 days while he prepared his appeal and while the appeal was under consideration by the California Supreme Court.”
Robinson v. Lewis, 469 P.3d 414 (Cal. 2020).
· cites it 3× “(Pen. Code, § 1506.) But in noncapital cases, if the superior court denies a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner has no statutory right to appeal.”
In Re Paul W., 2007 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5750 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 4× “In criminal cases, Penal Code section 1506 applies. In other habeas cases, the governing statute is Penal Code section 1507, which provides: "Where an application for a writ of habeas corpus has been made by or on behalf of any person other than a defendant in a criminal case,…”
Commonwealth v. Therrien, 420 N.E.2d 897 (Mass. 1981).
· cites it 4× “" [4] Subdivision (c) (8) is patterned after Cal. Penal Code § 1506 (Deering 1971 & Supp.”
People v. Bilbrey, 236 Cal. Rptr. 3d 381 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2018).
· cites it 2× “( Pen. Code, § 1506.)" ( Huff , supra , 46 Cal.”
Kernan v. Hinojosa, 578 U.S. 412 (2016).
“Instead of appealing that denial, see Cal.Penal Code Ann. § 1506 (West Supp.2016), Hinojosa sought an original writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court of California, see Cal.”
In Re Hawthorne, 105 P.3d 552 (Cal. 2005).
· cites it 2× “That is, the People may challenge a finding of mental retardation by appeal to this court (Pen. Code, § 1506); the petitioner may challenge a contrary finding by further petition for writ of habeas corpus to this court.”
Bloom v. Mun. Court, 545 P.2d 229 (Cal. 1976).
· cites it 2× “, Proposed Rev. of Cal. Const. (Feb. 1966) pp.”
In Re Carpenter, 889 P.2d 985 (Cal. 1995).
“(Pen. Code, § 1506.) III. Discussion The Attorney General, representing the Director of Corrections, challenges both the jurisdiction of the superior court over this matter and its ruling on the merits.”
In Re Crow, 483 P.2d 1206 (Cal. 1971).
· cites it 2× “Since the People failed to appeal, the Sacramento Superior Court judgment became res judicata.”
In Re Serrano, 895 P.2d 936 (Cal. 1995).
“He contends that because the People declined to file a return to the order to show cause or otherwise dispute his factual allegations, the Court of Appeal was not entitled to make findings of fact adverse to him.”
People v. Tulare Cnty. Superior Court, 28 Cal. Rptr. 3d 276 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005).
“(Pen. Code, § 1506.) 3 This court reversed, holding that a claim of imperfect self-defense cannot be based on delusion alone.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.