People v. Hillock
| Decision Date | 07 May 1974 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 23762 |
| Citation | 113 Cal.Rptr. 823,39 Cal.App.3d 36 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Steven Gregory HILLOCK, Defendant and Appellant. |
Albert D. Silverman, Canoga Park, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for appellant.
Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Jack R. Winkler, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Crim. Div., S. Clark Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., Russell Iungerich, and Kent L. Richland, Deputy Attys. Gen., for respondent.
Appellant pleaded guilty to possession of heroin (formerly Health & Saf.Code, § 11500, now § 11350). The court found appellant to be a narcotics addict, and committed him to custody of the Department of Corrections for confinement in a narcotics rehabilitation facility under provisions of Welfare & Institutions Code, section 3051. The director of the rehabilitation program thereafter determined appellant was not amenable to treatment and excluded him from the program. The court found the director did not abuse his discretion; it reinstated the criminal proceeding and imposed a prison term.
Appellant contends,
A cumulative case summary from the rehabilitation center, introduced into evidence, shows appellant was received at the facility December 19, 1968. He was released to outpatient status in January, 1970. Some two months thereafter he had returned to the use of narcotics, and with two other users was involved in a pursesnatching incident. Appellant was convicted of grand theft and was returned to the institution. (That conviction was reversed by this court in People v. Hillock, 2d Crim.No.18497, filed June 21, 1971.) Released to outpatient status in August, 1971, appellant was thereafter arrested once for disorderly conduct and later for attempted robbery and burglary following an alleged extortion attempt. As to the latter offense he was placed on probation, a portion of which time was to be spent in the county jail. In August, 1972, appellant was arrested for petty theft and possession of a switchblade knife; he was convicted of both offenses. Proceedings were then commenced which culminated in his exclusion.
A special representative of the civil addict program testified the question of exclusion was considered at the various administrative levels of C.R.C.; two...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Ramirez
...no purpose would have been served by requiring Morrissey procedures. (Id. at p. 91, 113 Cal.Rptr. 112.) Finally, in People v. Hillock, 39 Cal.App.3d 36, 113 Cal.Rptr. 823, the court held that Morrissey procedures did not apply where an outpatient was excluded from CRC. The court noted that ......
-
People v. Quintana
...before the Authority can exclude appellant from the program. 3 This very issue was discussed and decided in People v. Hillock (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 36, 113 Cal.Rptr. 823. In that case defendant was a C.R.C. outpatient who was convicted of a new crime; he was excluded by the Authority without......
-
People v. Lopez
...was suggested in People v. Montgomery (1967) 255 Cal.App.3d 127, 131, 62 Cal.Rptr. 895, and assumed in People v. Hillock (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 36, 38--39, 113 Cal.Rptr. 823. Whether or not a personal examination of the officers would yield any more or different information than that furnishe......
-
People v. Rivera
...The other two cases upon which the People rely, People v. Gifford (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 89, 113 Cal.Rptr. 112, and People v. Hillock (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 36, 113 Cal.Rptr. 823, dealt with the procedural rights of CRC outpatients, but both cases involved circumstances substantially different ......