# Caritativo v. Teets

> California Supreme Court · November 20, 1956 · 47 Cal. 2d 304

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9856082

## Case

- **Full name:** BART LUIS CARITATIVO, Petitioner, v. HARLEY O. TEETS, as Warden of State Prison, Etc., Respondent
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** November 20, 1956
- **Citations:** 47 Cal. 2d 304; 303 P.2d 339; 1956 Cal. LEXIS 279
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Carter
- **Judges:** McComb, Schauer, Carter
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9856082

## Opinion text

CARTER, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
Because it is and always has been my view that mandamus is not available to determine the sanity of a person under sentence of death and that habeas corpus is the only remedy available to such a person, I concur in the order for the dismissal of the appeal. I dissent from the holding in the majority opinion that there can be no judicial review of the determination of the warden as to the sanity of a person under sentence of death as it is my opinion that habeas corpus is available to review such a determination. (See concurring and dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Schauer in Phyle v. Duffy, 34 Cal.2d 144 [ 208 P.2d 668 ], and my dissent in McCracken v. Teets, *311 41 Cal.2d 648, 654 [ 262 P.2d 561 ].) I agree with the views expressed by Mr. Justice Schauer in his concurring opinion in the case at bar with respect to the availability of the writ of habeas corpus in a case such as this, and on the record before us, such remedy should be available to the petitioner here.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9856082. Public record. Not legal advice.