People v. Good
| Decision Date | 13 December 1963 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 1872 |
| Citation | 223 Cal.App.2d 298,35 Cal.Rptr. 825 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Lorens H. GOOD, Defendant and Appellant. |
Whelan & Miller and J. Robert O'Connor, San Diego, for defendant and appellant.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and H. Warren Siegel, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
The defendant was charged with the offense of contributing to the delinquency of a minor in seven counts, i. e., violations of § 272 of the Penal Code; in the Municipal Court, pleaded guilty to the offenses set forth in three of these counts; by that court was certified to the Superior Court for hearing and examination to determine whether he was a sexual psychopath within the meaning of Chapter 4, Part 1, Division 6 of the Welfare and Institutions Code; and was the subject of a hearing before the latter court resulting in the judgment and order from which he takes this appeal. After the hearing in question, the trial judge signed and caused to be filed a document entitled 'Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law' in which, in paragraph VI thereof, he finds that two qualified psychiatrists examined the defendant and found him 'to be a sexual psychopath as defined in Section 5500 of the Welfare and Institutions Code'; also finds, in paragraph VII thereof, that the defendant 'is a person who is affected in a form predisposing him to the commission of sexual offenses, and in a degree constituting him a menace to the health or safety of others, with a psychopathic personality'; and declares that, from the foregoing facts, the 'Court makes the following conclusions of law and order and judgment:
'I
'II
Thereupon, the defendant was delivered to the Atascadero State Hospital; was the subject of a report by the Superintendent of that hospital declaring that in the latter's opinion the defendant was not a sexual psychopath; was returned to the Superior Court; and his cause was remanded to the Municipal Court where he was sentenced upon the three counts of the charge to which theretofore he had pleaded guilty.
In the meantime the instant appeal had been filed, which seeks a reversal of the 'judgment' upon the ground that the court had no jurisdiction to make such.
It is obvious from the statute governing the instant proceeding that, at the hearing in question, the trial court had no authority to adjudge the defendant a sexual psychopath. The controlling provisions of that statute, i. e., Welfare and Institutions Code § 5512, as amended in 1961, declare:
'If, after examination and hearing, it appears there is sufficient cause to believe that the person is a sexual psychopath within the meaning of this chapter, the judge may make and sign an order that the person be placed temporarily in a suitable psychiatric facility maintained by a county or in a state hospital of the Department of Mental Hygiene designated by the court for observation and diagnosis for a period not to exceed 90 days, with the further provision in said order that the superintendent of the hospital * * * shall report to the court the diagnosis and recommendations concerning such person within the 90-day period. * * *
'If the superintendent of the hospital * * * reports to the court that the person is not a sexual psychopath, the person shall be returned to the court for further disposition of his case. * * *
'If the superintendent of the hospital * * * reports to the court that the person is a sexual psychopath and that the person could benefit by treatment in a state hospital, the court shall make an order committing the person to the department for placement in a state hospital for an indeterminate period * * * and such person may within 10 days demand a hearing in court as to the question of sexual psychopathy and upon such demand said court shall * * * fix a time and place for hearing. * * *' (Italics ours.)
By the foregoing provisions the authority of the court in the instant proceeding is limited to a determination whether 'there is sufficient cause to believe that the person is a sexual psychopath.' (Italics ours.) Under the present status of the law, not until the superintendent of the hospital has filed with the court a report that the person is a sexual psychopath is it authorized to enter a judgment declaring such to be the fact. Prior to its 1961 amendment the statute provided that:
'If, after examination and hearing, the judge finds that the person is a sexual psychopath within the meaning of this chapter,'
he may make an order placing the person temporarily in a state facility for observation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Succop
...is easily removed. An appellate court has the power to modify the wording of the order to conform to law. (People v. Good (1963) 223 Cal.App.2d 298, 301--302, 35 Cal.Rptr. 825.) The matter should be resolved on defendant's appeal pending in the Court of Appeal and that court can simply stri......
- People v. Martin
-
London Homes, Inc. v. Korn
...judgment. (Tupman v. Haberkern, 208 Cal. 256, 280 P. 970; Johndrow v. Thomas, 31 Cal.2d 202, 207-208, 187 P.2d 681; People v. Good, 223 Cal.App.2d 298, 302, 35 Cal.Rptr. 825; Strodel v. Wilcox, 137 Cal.App.2d 781, 786, 291 P.2d 95; Beyl v. Yasukochi, 135 Cal.App.2d 638, 640-641, 287 P.2d 86......
-
People v. Maugh
...sex offender' (§ 5512, Welf. & Inst. Code) thus the court's determination was in excess of its jurisdiction, citing People v. Good, 223 Cal.App.2d 298, 301, 35 Cal.Rptr. 825, 827, 5 and '(t)he vice of this finding is that no one can really determine how much Page 151 it affected all subsequ......