People v. Rummel
| Decision Date | 03 May 1966 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 9613 |
| Citation | 64 Cal.2d 515,413 P.2d 673,50 Cal.Rptr. 785 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 413 P.2d 673 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Arthur Paul RUMMEL, Defendant and Appellant. |
Molly H. Minudri, San Francisco, for defendant and appellant.
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., and William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
After the District Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, denied defendant's motion to recall its remittitur and set aside the dismissal of his appeal from a judgment of guilty of the possession of marijuana, we granted a hearing. His appeal was dismissed by the District Court of Appeal for failure to file briefs. The dismissal of the appeal was entirely proper, and the matter will be treated as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Facts: On February 21, 1964, defendant, while on parole, pleaded guilty in the Superior Court of San Diego County to possession of marijuana, admitting two prior convictions of the same offense.
On March 13, 1964, a hearing was held pursuant to the provisions of section 6451 of the Penal Code (now Welf. & Inst.Code, § 3051) to determine whether defendant was a narcotic addict or in imminent danger of becoming addicted to narcotics. 1
The court determined at said hearing that defendant was a narcotic addict within the meaning of section 6451, and on March 19, 1964, he was committed to the custody of the Director of Corrections for placement in the California Rehabilitation Center for treatment.
Upon defendant's arrival at the rehabilitation center's main facility at Corona, he was refused admission because of his being a parolee. He was transferred the same day to the California Institution for Men (Chino), which has been designated a branch of the rehabilitation center. (See In re Cruz, 62 Cal.2d 307, 319, fn. 10, 42 Cal.Rptr. 220, 398 P.2d 412.)
On May 23, 1964, the superintendent of the rehabilitation center, by the authority granted him by the Director of Corrections under section 5055 of the Penal Code, certified that defendant was not a fit subject for confinement or treatment at the center.
Some time in the early part of June 1964, defendant filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Superior Court of Riverside County (the county in which the main facility of the rehabilitation center is located), seeking to require the rehabilitation center to accept him. The hearing on the petition was initially set for June 19, 1964, but was continued at the request of the Attorney General.
On June 22, 1964, defendant's parole was revoked.
On July 2, 1964, at a hearing in the Superior Court of San Diego County the probation officer recommended that probation be denied, since, having two priors, defendant was ineligible. However, the probation report represented that defendant was a fit subject for rehabilitation despite his previous narcotic possession convictions. Probation was then denied, and defendant was sentenced to the term prescribed by law, carrying a minimum term of five years. 2
Questions: First. Should a parolee committed to the rehabilitation center be denied treatment there because of his parole status?
No. The Legislature, in section 6399 of the Penal Code (now Welf. & Inst. Code, § 3000), set forth its intent with respect to the enactment of the legislation establishing the rehabilitation program, as follows: * * *' (Stats.1963, ch. 1706, p. 3351.)
There is nothing in the statute to indicate that parolees should be treated differently and that the rehabilitation program is reserved for persons who are not on parole.
Accordingly, it was an abuse of discretion on the part of the Director of Corrections to deny treatment to defendant solely because he was a parolee. 3
Second. What effect...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Berry
...628 **, 53 Cal.Rptr. 326) (director reached his conclusion before the expiration of the 60-day period); (People v. Rummel, 64 Cal.2d 515, 50 Cal.Rptr. 785, 413 P.2d 673; People v. Pate, 234 Cal.App.2d 273, 44 Cal.Rptr. 462) (director misconstrued the law as to the eligibility of a person fo......
-
Wells, In re
...petitioner's preexisting sentence. (People v. Redford, 194 Cal.App.2d 200, 205-206, 14 Cal.Rptr. 866; see also People v. Rummel, 64 Cal.2d 515, 518 Cal.Rptr.785, 413 P.2d 673; In re Swearingen, 64 Cal.2d 519, 522, 50 Cal.Rptr. 787, 413 P.2d 675.) Had the Santa Barbara court conducted procee......
-
People v. Miller
...80, 82, a 56 Cal.Rptr. 893, 442 P.2d 333; In re Teran, 65 Cal.2d 523, 526, 55 Cal.Rptr. 259, 421 P.2d 107; People v. Rummel, 64 Cal.2d 515, 518, 50 Cal.Rptr. 785, 413 P.2d 673; In re Swearingen, 64 Cal.2d 519, 522, 50 Cal.Rptr. 787, 413 P.2d 675; People v. Gallegos, 245 Cal.App.2d 53, 56, 5......
-
Hayward v. Stone, 72-2299.
...Court may also treat an application to recall the remittitur as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus; People v. Rummel, 1966, 64 Cal.2d 515, 50 Cal. Rptr. 785, 413 P.2d 673; or a petition for a writ of habeas corpus as an application to recall the remittitur, In re Smith, In his applicati......