Specht v. Patterson
Decision Date | 11 April 1967 |
Docket Number | No. 831,831 |
Parties | Francis Eddie SPECHT, Petitioner, v. Wayne K. PATTERSON, Warden et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Michael A. Williams, Denver, Colo., for petitioner.
John E. Bush, Denver, Colo., for respondents.
We held in Williams v. People of State of New York, 337 U.S. 241, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 93 L.Ed. 1337, that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not require a judge to have hearings and to give a convicted person an opportunity to participate in those hearings when he came to determine the sentence to be imposed. We said:
That was a case where at the end of the trial and in the same proceeding the fixing of the penalty for first degree murder was involved—whether life imprisonment or death.
The question is whether the rule of the Williams case applies to this Colorado case where petitioner, having been convicted for indecent liberties under one Colorado statute that carries a maximum sentence of 10 years (Colo.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 40—2—32 (1963)) but not sentenced under it, may be sentenced under the Sex Offenders Act, Colo.Rev.Stat.Ann. §§ 39—19—1 to 10 (1963), for an indeterminate term of from one day to life without notice and full hearing. The Colorado Supreme Court approved the procedure, when it was challenged by habeas corpus (153 Colo. 235, 385 P.2d 423) and on motion to set aside the judgment. 156 Colo. 12, 396 P.2d 838. This federal habeas corpus proceeding resulted, the Court of Appeals affirming dismissal of the writ, 10 Cir., 357 F.2d 325. The case is here on a petition for certiorari, 385 U.S. 968, 87 S.Ct. 516, 17 L.Ed.2d 433.
The Sex Offenders Act may be brought into play if the trial court 'is of the opinion that any * * * person (convicted of specified sex offenses), if at large, constitutes a threat of bodily harm to members of the public, or is an habitual offender and mentally ill.' § 1. He then becomes punishable for an indeterminate term of from one day to life on the following conditions as specified in § 2:
'(2) A complete psychiatric examination shall have been made of him by the psychiatrists of the Colorado psychopathic hospital or by psychiatrists designated by the district court; and
This procedure was followed in petitioner's case; he was examined as required and a psychiatric report prepared and given to the trial judge prior to the sentencing. But there was no hearing in the normal sense, no right of confrontation and so on.
Petitioner insists that this procedure does not satisfy due process because it allows the critical finding to be made under § 1 of the Sex Offenders Act (1) without a hearing at which the person so convicted may confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses and present evidence of his own by use of compulsory process, if necessary; and (2) on the basis of hearsay evidence to which the person involved is not allowed access.
We adhere to Williams v. People of State of New York, supra; but we decline the invitation to extend it to this radically different situation. These commitment proceedings whether denominated civil or criminal are subject both to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as we held in Baxstrom v. Herold, 383 U.S. 107, 86 S.Ct. 760, 15 L.Ed.2d 620, and to the Due Process Clause. We hold that the requirements of due process were not satisfied here.
The Sex Offenders Act does not make the commission of a specified crime the basis for sentencing. It makes one conviction the basis for commencing another proceeding under another Act to determine whether a person constitutes a threat of bodily harm to the public, or is an habitual offender and mentally ill. That is a new finding of fact (Vanderhoof v. People of State of Colorado, 152 Colo. 147, 149, 380 P.2d 903, 904) that was not an ingredient of the offense charged. The punishment under the second Act is criminal punishment even though it is designed not so much as retribution as it is to keep individuals from inflicting future harm.1 United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 458, 85 S.Ct. 1707, 1720, 14 L.Ed.2d 484.
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in speaking of a comparable Pennsylvania statute2 said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Franklin, In re
...defendant's sanity in the past, present commitment is predicated on a finding of present insanity. Thus Specht (Specht v. Patterson, 386 U.S. 605, 87 S.Ct. 1209, 18 L.Ed.2d 326) 8 Would appear to require that this finding be made in a hearing.' (Pp. In California, on the other hand, the def......
-
Salas v. Cortez
...the action is labelled criminal or civil. (In re Gault (1967) 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527; Specht v. Patterson (1967) 386 U.S. 605, 608-610, 87 S.Ct. 1209, 18 L.Ed.2d 326.) For example, where the deprivation the defendant faces is significant and the facts are complex, due pro......
-
Conservatorship of Roulet
... ... 358, 365-366, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368; In re Gault (1967) 387 U.S. 1, 49-50, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527; Specht v. Patterson (1967) 386 U.S. 605, 608-609, 87 S.Ct. 1209, 18 L.Ed.2d 326.) ... Grave disability is unrelated to criminal conduct ... ...
-
People v. Thomas
...predator]; see also Vitek v. Jones (1980) 445 U.S. 480, 494-496 [transfer of prisoner to mental hospital]; Specht v. Patterson (1967) 386 U.S. 605, 610-611 [87S.Ct. 1209] [commitment under Colorado's Sex Offenders Act]) and as a matter of statute (see § 1026.5, subd. (b)(7); see also U.S. C......
-
Liberty interests in the preventive state: procedural due process and sex offender community notification laws.
...to Minnesota's "sexual psychopath" law, which diverted suspects to treatment facilities in lieu of prison). But see Specht v. Patterson, 386 U.S. 605, 610 (1967) (striking down on procedural due process grounds a sex offender sentence enhancement on reasoning that "the invocation of the [Co......
-
Table of cases
...40 Cal.App.4th 1455, §12:37.2 South Dakota v. Neville (1983) 459 U.S. 553, §§3:38, 6:32.2, 9:38.7, 9:117.1 Specht v. Patterson (1967) 386 U.S. 605, 610, §9:105.2 Spilman v. California Highway Patrol (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 59, §2:47 Spitz v. Zolin (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1920, §§11:26, 11:217 S......
-
Trial defense of dui in California
...be confronted with witnesses against him, have the right to cross-examine, and to offer evidence of his own.” ( Specht v. Patterson (1967) 386 U.S. 605, 610; accord, Camillo v. Armontrout (8th Cir. 1991) 983 F.2d 879, 881 [“When enhanced punishment depends upon evidence of prior criminal co......
-
How Immigration Detention Became Exceptional.
...law that relaxed the procedural standards for civil commitment following the completion of a prison term). (446.) See Specht v. Patterson, 386 U.S. 605, 607-10 (1967) (holding unconstitutional a statute authorizing judges in criminal cases to civilly commit people convicted of sexually viol......