From Guam Courts. If it appears on the return of the writ that the prisoner is in custody by virtue of process from any court of this Territory, or judge or officer thereof, such prisoner may be discharged in any of the following cases, subject to the restrictions of 135.36: (a) When the jurisdiction of such courts or officer has been exceeded; (b) When the imprisonment was at first lawful, yet by some act, omission, or event which has taken place afterwards, the party has become entitled to a discharge;
COL120106
(c) When the process is defective in some matter of substance required by law, rendering such process void; (d) When the process, though proper in form, has been issued in a case not allowed by law; (e) When the person having the custody of the prisoner is not the person allowed by law to detain him; (f) Where the process is not authorized by any order, judgment, or decree of any court, nor by any provision of law; (g) Where a party has been committed on a criminal charge without reasonable or probable cause. COURT DECISIONS: D.C. Guam App. Div., People v. Santos, D.C. Cr. 85-006A (1985). Defendant has no grounds to seek a writ of habeas corpus when he could have raised the same issues several times in past proceedings and when the sentence was within the bounds permitted by law. NOTE: Section 135.38. is substantively the same as former § 1487. See also Cal. Pen. Code § 1487 (same). As to grounds for relief generally, see B. Witkin, California Criminal Procedure Habeas Corpus and Other Extraordinary Writs §§ 799-810 (1963, Supp. 1973).