People v. Gallegos, Cr. 11597

• Decision Date: 20 September 1966
• Docket Number: Cr. 11597
• Citation: 53 Cal.Rptr. 663,245 Cal.App.2d 53
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Alfonso GALLEGOS, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 663

53 Cal.Rptr. 663

245 Cal.App.2d 53

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Alfonso GALLEGOS, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 11597.

District Court of Appeal, Second District Division 2, California.

Sept. 20, 1966.

Gilbert F. Nelson, ^* Los Angeles, for appellant.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., Mitchell S. Shapiro, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

ROTH, Presiding Justice.

On March 2, 1965 appellant, a parolee, was found guilty by a jury of possession of narcotics in violation of section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code. Appellant admitted four prior felony convictions for possession of narcotics.

Criminal proceedings were suspended, and after proceedings were conducted pursuant to Penal Code, § 6451 (now Welfare and Institutions Code, § 3051), ¹ on May 11, 1965 appellant was found to be an addict and ordered by the court to be committed to the California Rehabilitation Center for treatment.

Appellant was received at the Center on May 14, 1965. The diagnostic study, made while appellant was confined at the Center, is dated June 30, 1965. It concludes that 'the aspects of control outweigh (appellant's) amenability as a treatment candidate.' On July 2, 1965 an additional report was made by a correction counselor at the Center which concludes that '(t)here is very little amenability present.'

On July 19, 1965 appellant was sent to the Adult Authority with the results of the study for hearing on his parole violation. The Adult Authority revoked appellant's parole and retained jurisdiction. On July 27, the Superintendent of the C.R.C. certified appellant back to the superior court as unfit for treatment. ²

On August 16, 1965 criminal proceedings were reinstated and appellant was sentenced to prison.

Section 6453 of the Penal Code (now Welfare and Institutions Code, § 3053) as amended in 1963 and in effect at the time petitioner was committed, provided in part: 'If at any time after 60 days following receipt of a person at the facility, the Director of Corrections concludes that the person, because of excessive criminality or for other relevant reason, is not a fit subject for confinement or treatment in such * * * rehabilitation facility, he shall return the person to the court in which the case originated for * * * further proceedings on the criminal charges * * *.' (Stats.1963, ch. 1706, p. 3355).

In In re Swearingen, 64 A.C. 545, 50 Cal.Rptr. 787, 413 P.2d 675, the petitioner had been received at the Center on May 14, 1965. He, too, was a parolee and on June 21 was sent to another facility for an Adult Authority hearing. As in the case at bench, a diagnostic study had been made prior to the hearing by the Adult Authority and following recommendation of the C.R.C. superintendent, parole was revoked.

In Swearingen, the court held that the petitioner had been improperly rejected at the rehabilitation center, stating at 64 A.C. page 547, 50 Cal.Rptr. page 789, 413 P.2d page 677:

'Prior to the 1963 amendment, the section (6453 of the Penal Code) provided: 'If at any time the Director of Corrections concludes that the person is not a fit subject for confinement or treatment * * *.' (Stats.1961, ch. 850, p. 2226.)

'Thus, by the 1963 amendment, the Legislature rarrowed the power of the Director of Corrections to return a person committed to the rehabilitation center, authorizing him to return such a person only if he should conclude, After 60 days following receipt of the person at the facility, that because of excessive criminality or for other relevant reason the person was not a fit subject for confinement or treatment.

'The language of the statute clearly requires That an evaluation be made of such persons at the rehabilitation center During a period of 60 days to determine whether or not they are fit subjects for the program.

'In the present case, the certification that petitioner was not a fit subject for confinement or treatment was made after the expiration of the 60-day period, but the Conclusion that he was not a fit subject for confinement or treatment was admittedly made more than three weeks before the expiration of the 60-day period and Without petitioner's having been given any tests or treatment at the center.

'Under the circumstances, the prescribed procedure was circumvented in petitioner's case.' (Emphasis added.)

The facts of the case at bench are almost identical to those in Swearingen. The only difference is that appellant in the present case was not sent to the Adult Authority for hearing until the expiration of the 60 days. That fact, however, is irrelevant; Swearingen makes clear that no Conclusion about amendability to treatment may be made prior to the expiration of the 60-day period. As we have noted, the superintendent recommended rejection of appellant for reasons of 'control' on June 30, 1965, only 47 days after appellant's arrival at the Center. In addition, there is nothing in the record to indicate that appellant was given tests or treatment.

In In re Rascon, 64 A.C. 549, 50 Cal.Rptr. 790, 413 P.2d 678, the committing court chose to inform itself of the likelihood of the petitioner's admission into the C.R.C.'s program before exercising his discretion under then Penal Code sections 6451--6453 commitment procedure. The Supreme Court held that the trial court was entitled to consider a letter on this matter sent by the superintendent of the Center stating that it was most unlikely that petitioner would be accepted by them. The court noted, however, at p. 553, 50 Cal.Rptr. at p. 793, 413 P.2d at p. 681:

'If the trial court had committed petitioner to the rehabilitation center the Director of Corrections, by the terms of ...