Gomez, In re

• Decision Date: 23 May 1966
• Docket Number: Cr. 8985
• Citation: 414 P.2d 33,64 Cal.2d 591,51 Cal.Rptr. 97
• Parties: , 414 P.2d 33 In re Ramon J. GOMEZ on Habeas Corpus. In Bank
• Court: California Supreme Court

Page 97

51 Cal.Rptr. 97

64 Cal.2d 591, 414 P.2d 33

In re Ramon J. GOMEZ on Habeas Corpus.

Cr. 8985.

Supreme Court of California,

In Bank.

May 23, 1966.

Ramon J. Gomez, in pro. per., and Hadden W. Roth, San Rafael, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for petitioner.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., Albert W. Harris, Jr., Jay S. Linderman and Robert R. Cranucci, Deputy Attys. Gen., for respondent.

TRAYNOR, Chief Justice.

In this proceeding petitioner challenges the revocation of his parole by the Adult Authority. He was convicted in December 1957 of 'the infamous crime against nature' (Pen.Code, § 286) and sentenced to the term prescribed by law. He was paroled on June 18, 1963. On July 16, 1964 his parole was cancelled because of his (1) 'committing the crime of burglary' and (2) 'failing to cooperate with his Parole Agent, and by his behavior and attitude not justifying the opportunity granted him by parole by: (a) Refusing to take the advice and counsel of his Parole Agent.' On October 19, 1964, following a hearing before the Adult Authority, petitioner was found guilty of both charges and his parole was revoked. A subsequent hearing was held on March 24, 1965, 'to review the parole violation charges.' The Adult Authority concluded that petitioner's parole had been properly revoked and placed his case on its August calendar to consider redetermination of his sentence. On August 18, 1965, it refixed petitioner's term at ten and one-half years. Meanwhile, on May 19, 1965, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this court alleging that the Adult Authority relied on an uncorroborated, involuntary confession to supply the good cause required to revoke parole. (Pen.Code, § 3063.) On July 8, 1965, we issued an order to show cause and thereafter appointed a referee to take evidence and make findings on the following questions: (1) Was a confession introduced in the parole revocation hearing? If so, was it obtained in the manner alleged by petitioner? (2) Did petitioner have an opportunity to contest the allegations against him at the hearing before the Adult Authority? The reference hearing was held and findings of fact were submitted by the referee, the Honorable Thomas P. White.

From the record of the reference hearing it appears that while on parole in May 1964 petitioner was arrested by the Whittier police on suspicion of committing burglary. Although no formal charges were filed against petitioner, he was transferred to the Los Angeles County Jail and held there for approximately three months as a parole violator. He had several discussions with his parole officer in the Whittier and Los Angeles jails, but at no time admitted to the parole officer any involvement in the burglary for which he was arrested.

Petitioner testified that his sister had talked to his parole officer, who told her that it would help petitioner to have his parole reinstated if he would cooperate by submitting to a psychiatric examination to be arranged by the parole officer. Petitioner agreed to submit to an examination by Dr. James E. Miles, Staff Psychiatrist for the State Department of Corrections. He testified that he confessed to having committed the burglary and gave Dr. Miles a fabricated psychological reason for the crime. Thereafter he also admitted to Parole Agent Angel Ramirez at the Los Angeles jail that he was involved in the alleged burglary. After this confession, petitioner's parole was cancelled and he was returned to San Quentin, where he told Correctional Counselor Michael Basten that he had committed the alleged burglary. He testified that all of these confessions were false and that he made the confessions to Dr. Miles and Mr. Ramirez because he believed from what his parole officer had told his sister and his experience with correctional officials that if he confessed his sins and gave 'psychological support' his chances for readmission to parole would be increased. According to petitioner, the confession to Mr. Basten at San Quentin was given after petitioner concluded that the revocation was probably going to take effect and that his chances for readmission to parole would be enhanced by a confession combined with a psychological motive. The Adult Authority relied on the confession to Mr. Basten at the October 1964 revocation hearing.

Although it is undisputed that petitioner's parole officer urged him both directly and through his sister to cooperate and to take a lie detector test and stated that by so doing petitioner might improve his chances of remaining on parole, the parole officer did not tell petitioner that those chances would be improved if he confessed or that his parole would be revoked if he did not. We agree with the referee's finding that petitioner confessed because he believed it would improve his chances for readmission to parole. We also agree with the referee's finding that petitioner's confessions were not involuntary. Whatever their motivation, his confessions did not result from any improper pressure. He had been lawfully arrested for allegedly committing a burglary. In discharge of the parole officer's obligation to protect the interests of both petitioner and the public, it was entirely proper for the officer to confront petitioner squarely with the predicament he was in and to give him an opportunity to exculpate himself if...