People v. Lindsey

• Decision Date: 21 October 1971
• Docket Number: Cr. 20553
• Citation: 20 Cal.App.3d 742,97 Cal.Rptr. 872
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. James William LINDSEY, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 872

97 Cal.Rptr. 872

20 Cal.App.3d 742

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. James William LINDSEY, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 20553.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4, California.

Oct. 21, 1971.

James William Lindsey, in pro. per.

No appearance for plaintiff and respondent.

FILES, Presiding Justice.

While an information charging defendant with three folonies was pending, the superior court determined, after a hearing, that defendant was then insane within the meaning of Penal Code sections 1367--1370. On May 21, 1971, the court committed him to a state hospital for care and treatment. Defendant is appealing from that order.

On August 25, 1971, the superior court received notice that the superintendent of the state hospital had certified that defendant had become sane. Pursuant to Penal Code section 1372 defendant was brought back to the court and the criminal charges were set for trial.

The order of commitment made May 21, 1971, is an appealable judgment. (People v. Fields (1965) 62 Cal.2d 538, 42 Cal.Rptr. 833, 399 P.2d 369.) Since a person committed under Penal Code section 1370 must be held until he becomes sane, such a commitment may result in a permanent deprivation of liberty. In this case the superintendent's certification of sanity terminates the commitment, leaving no prejudicial consequences which could be ameliorated by a successful appeal. This appeal has therefore become moot and must be dismissed.

When a person has been convicted of a crime, the fact that he has served his term of imprisonment does not make the appeal moot, as he is entitled to appeal the conviction for the sake of clearing his name. (In re Byrnes (1945) 26 Cal.2d 824, 827, 161 P.2d 376.) This principle was applied in People v. Succop (1967) 67 Cal.2d 785, 63 Cal.Rptr. 569, 433 P.2d 473, which held that an order committing the defendant civilly as a probable mentally disordered sex offender (former Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5500, now § 6300, et seq.) was reviewable on an appeal from an ensuing criminal judgment, despite the fact that the civil proceedings had been terminated. The court pointed out that the finding was relevant to the question whether probation should be granted, and further that the defendant was entitled to clear his name.

On the other hand, in In re Katherine R. (1970) 6 Cal.App.3d 354, 86 Cal.Rptr. 281, an appeal from an order making a minor a ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 601 was held to be moot when the wardship was terminated by reason of the minor's marriage. The appellate court considered the Byrnes-Succop line of cases and distinguished them, pointing out that Katherine had not been found guilty of any crime. The wardship order was based only upon a determination that the minor had been in need of supervision, which order imposed no restraint upon her after her marriage.

In the case at bench the...