People v. Calloway
Decision Date | 13 March 1974 |
Docket Number | Cr. 5491 |
Citation | 112 Cal.Rptr. 745,37 Cal.App.3d 905 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Danny CALLOWAY, Defendant and Appellant. |
Defendant Danny Calloway was found guilty of burglary (second degree) by a jury and applied for probation. After referral to the Department of Corrections for a diagnostic study pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.03, his application for probation was denied and he was committed to the California Youth Authority. On appeal he raises no issues related to this trial and conviction, but asserts his commitment to the Youth Authority should be set aside because of frequent reference in the probation report to 'suspicion arrests' which did not result in convictions. He also claims it was a denial of due process for the trial court to consider such 'arrests' in denying his application for probation.
In that portion of the probation report denominated 'Prior Record,' page 3 of the report contains a listing of Calloway's prior contacts with law enforcement agencies and counts. 1 The dispositions shown for eight of these matters (some of them traffic violations) indicate convictions or the equivalent. In four matters (all relating to traffic violations) the disposition is 'unknown.' Seven police contacts, under the headings of grand theft, burglary and assault with a deadly weapon, all bear the notation: 'Not arrested, 849b(1) (849(b)(1)) P.C.'
Section 849, subdivision (b)(1) of the Penal Code reads:
'Any peace officer may release from custody, instead of taking such person before a magistrate, any person arrested without a warrant whenever: . . . (h)e is satisfied that there are insufficient grounds for making a criminal complaint against the person arrested.'
Subdivision (c) of the same section states:
Calloway contends the inclusion in the probation report of the seven 'police contacts' in connection with which he was neither convicted nor charged prejudicially associates him with seven serious crimes and so infected his probation hearing as to deny him due process of law. We agree in part. Such records, without supporting factual information, should not be included in a probation report. They are unreliable, highly prejudicial, and under many circumstances could result in a fundamentally unfair hearing.
While an applicant for probation is not entitled to the same procedural safeguards as in the case of a trial on the issues of guilt, he must be afforded hearing procedures which are fundamentally fair (People v. Peterson, 9 Cal.3d 717, 726, 108 Cal.Rptr. 835, 511 P.2d 1187). There must be some substantial basis for believing the information contained in the probation report is accurate and reliable (Ibid. p. 727, 108 Cal.Rptr. 835, 511 P.2d 1187).
The practice of including raw arrest data in a probation report is condemned by the American Bar Association's Standards for Criminal Justice.
(Standards Relating to Probation, Approved Draft, p. 37.)
Reference to Calloway's 'police contacts' in the probation report under consideration here has even less reliability than the matters specifically condemned in the American Bar Commentary quoted above. The Legislature has declared such incidents 'shall not be deemed an arrest' (Pen.Code § 849, subd. (c)), and the bare fact that the police detained and questioned Calloway on several occasions concerning possible crimes gives rise to no reasonable inference he was a perpetrator of any one of them. Since the officer in each instance was authorized to release Calloway only if he was satisfied there were insufficient grounds for making a criminal complaint against him, the reasonable inference is that Calloway was not involved in any of the crimes under investigation. Inquiry into the facts surrounding the incidents might well reveal no crime had been committed by anyone or that the crime under investigation had in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Ratcliffe
...prior police contacts that did not result in convictions, denied him due process of law. Appellant relies upon People v. Calloway (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 905, 112 Cal.Rptr. 745 to support his The defendant in Calloway complained that the trial court denied his application for probation and com......
-
People v. Goulart
...Cal.Rptr. 32); uncharged crimes, the existence of which is readily apparent from the facts elicited at trial (People v. Calloway (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 905, 908, 112 Cal.Rptr. 745); or even charges of which the defendant was acquitted, if justice requires they be considered. ( People v. Lent,......
-
Loder v. Municipal Court
...result in conviction (People v. White (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 296, 298, 240 P.2d 728, and cases cited; but see People v. Calloway (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 905, 908--909, 112 Cal.Rptr. 745 (dictum)). And it has also been held that if the defendant is sentenced to prison, the Adult Authority may ta......
-
People v. Chi Ko Wong
...supporting information. (People v. Peterson (1973) 9 Cal.3d 717, 727, 108 Cal.Rptr. 835, 511 P.2d 1187; People v. Calloway (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 905, 908--909, 112 Cal.Rptr. 745.) Turning to the facts of the instant case we note that in addition to those allegations contained in the section ......