How have courts interpreted the word "loiter" in the context of habeas corpus?

The very statute upon which appellant was convicted has been held to define the word "loiter" as lingering about schools and public places for the purpose or with the intent of effectuating some criminal act. ⁶ Cal.Penal Code Sec. 653g; Huddleson v. Hill, 229 Cal.App.2d 618, 40 Cal.Rptr. 581, 584 (1964). On appeal, appellant neither challenges that definition nor, indeed, refutes that his particular conduct fell well within its stead. His habeas corpus challenge, reduced to its simplest terms, is that he had a right not to be convicted of loitering in the absence of a request to leave.