People v. Le Gerrette
| Decision Date | 20 October 1966 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 2457 |
| Citation | 54 Cal.Rptr. 304,245 Cal.App.2d 764 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Robert D. LE GERRETTE, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Defendant was convicted of possessing a narcotic (Health and Safety Code § 11500) by the court, sitting without a jury. The criminal proceedings were suspended before sentence and without any ruling upon defendant's application for probation, to ascertain, under section 3051, Welfare and Institutions Code, if defendant was addicted to narcotics or in danger of becoming so addicted. He was found to be addicted and on January 12, 1966 was committed pursuant to section 3051, Welfare and Institutions Code.
Defendant has appealed by his handwritten letter which states: 'I would like to file an appeal of my case * * *'; he does not state from what order he wishes to appeal.
Since the criminal proceedings were suspended prior to the imposition of sentence, and prior to any action on defendant's request for probation, there is no appealable final judgment of conviction. (Pen.Code § 1237(1).)
In cases where the defendant is committed before final judgment for narcotics addiction, an appeal may be taken from an order denying a motion for new trial. (Pen.Code § 1237(2).) However, defendant did not move for a new trial.
An appeal may be taken from the order of commitment pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code, section 3051 as a final order made in a special proceeding under section 963, Code of Civil Procedure. (People v. Gross, 44 Cal.2d 859, 285 P.2d 630; In re De La O, 59 Cal.2d 128, 28 Cal.Rptr. 489, 378 P.2d 793, 98 A.L.R.2d 705.) The only appealable order, therefore, is the order of commitment made under section 3051, Welfare and Institutions Code. Defendant has filed what will be treated as a sufficient notice of appeal from the commitment order. (People v. Juvera, 214 Cal.App.2d 569, 29 Cal.Rptr. 653.) However, in such appeal he may base error only on the lack of jurisdiction of the trial court to institute commitment proceedings or the invalidity of the proceedings culminating in the order itself. Instead, defendant seeks to attack the admissibility of evidence in the criminal trial and what he contends to have been an unlawful search and seizure of which such evidence is the product.
Defendant, after the court hearing that led to the commitment order, did not ask for a jury trial as permitted by section 3051, Welfare and Institutions Code. He alleges no error in the commitment proceedings themselves.
We hold that upon direct appeal from an order of commitment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Murphy
...vehicle to attack his criminal conviction. (People v. Cordova (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 434, 61 Cal.Rptr. 327; People v. Le Gerrette (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 764, 54 Cal.Rptr. 304.) Both in form and in substance, the civil commitment proceedings are wholly distinct from the criminal prosecution. T......
-
People v. Gonzales
...and the proceedings thereunder primarily flows to the individual narcotic addict, and indirectly to society. In People v. Le Gerrette, 245 Cal.App.2d 764, 54 Cal.Rptr. 304, defendant had been convicted of possession of narcotics but before sentence, criminal proceedings were suspended to as......
-
People v. Williams
...not have questioned the sufficiency or admissibility of the evidence upon which the conviction was based. (People v. Le Gerrette (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 764, 54 Cal.Rptr. 304.) We willingly obey the rules regarding retroactivity which have been declared by the California Supreme Court; and in......
-
People v. Bautista
...109, 114--115, 74 Cal.Rptr. 65, 448 P.2d 945; People v. Gonzales, 256 Cal.App.2d 50, 55, 63 Cal.Rptr. 581; People v. Le Gerrette, 245 Cal.App.2d 764, 765, 54 Cal.Rptr. 304.) Each cited case involved an appeal from a civil commitment order and in each the defendant was denied the right to at......