People v. Gross

• Decision Date: 08 July 1955
• Citation: 44 Cal.2d 859,285 P.2d 630
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Walter GROSS, Defendant and Appellant. L.A. 23663.

Page 630

285 P.2d 630

44 Cal.2d 859

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Walter GROSS, Defendant and Appellant.

L.A. 23663.

Supreme Court of California, in Bank.

July 8, 1955.

Walter Gross, in pro. per., and Harry C. Cogen, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., and William E. James, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

GIBSON, Chief Justice.

The People have moved to dismiss defendant's appeal from an order denying his motion to correct and amend a clerk's transcript.

Defendant was adjudged a sexual psychopath in 1948 in proceedings brought under section 5500 et seq. of the Welfare and Institutions Code. He applied to the superior court for redetermination of his condition pursuant to section 5519, and on December 15, 1952, in accord with the reports of medical experts, the court found that he was still a sexual psychopath and ordered him to be returned to a state mental hospital. ¹ Defendant appealed from that order, and his appeal is still pending in the District Court of Appeal. We ordered transcripts to be furnished at public expense for use on that appeal. Gross v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.2d 816, 270 P.2d 1025. After a record was prepared, defendant made a motion in the trial court to correct and amend the transcript by striking out certain statements and substituting others. The present appeal is from an order denying that motion.

The principal question is whether an appeal lies from the order refusing to correct and amend the transcript. Sexual psychopathy proceedings are not criminal actions but special proceedings of a civil nature. An original order of commitment as a sexual psychopath is appealable as a final judgment in a special proceeding under section 963 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and subsequent orders redetermining his condition made under section 5519 are appealable under subdivision 2 of section 963 as special orders after final judgment. Gross v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.2d 816, 820-821, 270 P.2d 1025; see People v. Bachman, 130 Cal.App.2d 445, 279 P.2d 77. However, an order after final judgment is not appealable unless it affects the judgment in some manner or bears some relation to its enforcement. Imperial Beverage Co. v. Superior Court, 24 Cal.2d 627, 632, 150 P.2d 881; Williams v. Superior Court, 14 Cal.2d 656, 666, 96 P.2d 334; McCord Co. v. Plotnick, 104 Cal.App.2d 495, 496, 231 P.2d 880. The trial court, in rejecting the proposed corrections, apparently treated the motion as a request for correction of the transcript under rule 8 of the Rules on Appeal. In an analogous situation, where the trial court denied a motion to amend a reporter's transcript by striking out certain words in the answer of a witness and inserting others, it was held that the order was not appealable as a special order after final judgment since it did not affect the judgment or its enforcement. McCord v....