People v. Chacon

• Decision Date: 30 August 1967
• Docket Number: Cr. 13345
• Citation: 61 Cal.Rptr. 807,253 Cal.App.2d 1056
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Edward William CHACON, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 807

61 Cal.Rptr. 807

253 Cal.App.2d 1056

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Edward William CHACON, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 13345.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

Aug. 30, 1967.

Joseph Amato, Los Angeles, under appointment by Court of Appeal, for appellant.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., Edward A. Hinz, Jr., Deputy Atty. Gen., and Robert J. Sullivan, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

FOURT, Associate Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment 'sustaining the petition filed by the District Attorney of Los Angeles pursuant to sect. 3100.6 of the Welfare and Institution (sic) Code for a civil committment (sic) to the Calif. Rehabilitation Center.'

On October 17, 1966, an application was made for the admission of Edward William Chacon (appellant herein) to the Los Angeles County Central Jail Infirmary pursuant to section 3100.6, Welfare and Institutions Code, as a person who was believed to be addicted to the use of narcotics or who was believed to be in imminent danger of being addicted to their use. This application was signed by D. L. Tipps, a member of the Los Angeles Police Department Narcotics Division, and an expert in the field of narcotics. The officer set forth in the application, among other things, many good and sufficient reasons for believing Chacon was addicted to narcotics.

On October 19, 1966, Doctor F. E. Wetzel executed an affidavit setting forth that affiant examined and re-examined Chacon for the purpose of ascertaining whether Chacon was addicted to the use of narcotics or was in imminent danger of becoming addicted to their use. The doctor set forth numerous reasons why he was of the opinion that appellant was a narcotics addict, or by reason of repeated use of narcotics was in imminent danger of becoming addicted, and that unless confined Chacon was likely to injure himself or others or become a menace to the public. The doctor further stated in the affidavit that Chacon told him that he first used 'heroin in July, 1966, following which he gradually increased his dosage to twice daily and three caps on the average per dose from just weekend usage initially and eventually was using four times daily.'

On October 20, 1966, the District Attorney of the County of Los Angeles petitioned for the commitment of appellant as a narcotics drug addict pursuant to section 3100, Welfare and Institutions Code. On October 20, 1966, a judge of the superior court made an order of detention pursuant to section 3102 Welfare and Institutions Code. On October 20, 1966, there also was an order made by a judge of the court setting a hearing on said matter at 9 a.m. November 2, 1966, and an order directing Chacon to appear at the time and place of hearing. A copy of the order was served upon Chacon.

On November 2, 1966, a hearing was held. Chacon was represented by counsel. The allegations of the petition were sustained. Chacon was found to be in imminent danger of becoming a narcotics addict and he was committed to the Department of Corrections for placement at the California Rehabilitation Center.

On November 9, 1966, Chacon through his counsel demanded a jury trial. On November 22, 1966, the matter came on for trial before a jury. Chacon was represented by the public defender. The jury unanimously found that Chacon by reason of repeated use of narcotics was in imminent danger of becoming a narcotics addict. The court found Chacon was in imminent danger of becoming a narcotics addict and ordered Chacon committed in accordance with the commitment heretofore made on November 2, 1966. A timely notice of appeal was filed.

A re sume of some of the facts is as follows: On the evening of October 17, 1966, Officers Miller and Rukasin were in a patrol car on routine patrol when they saw appellant driving erratically. The officers stopped appellant and asked for his driver's license; appellant did not have a license but presented a draft card as identification. The officers ran a 'want' over the patrol car radio on appellant and on the car he was driving. While awaiting the results of the check, Officer Rukasin was preparing a citation for driving without a license. Officer Rukasin talked with Chacon and observed that he was unsteady, his...