People v. Mason

California Court of Appeal Jan 31, 1952 No. Crim. 4679Published

Before: Drapeau

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a prior civil commitment for intemperance does not divest a superior court of jurisdiction to proceed with a criminal prosecution and pronounce judgment against a defendant. Furthermore, orders denying probation or a motion to reconsider such denial are not appealable.

Issues

Did the superior court lack jurisdiction to sentence the defendant while a prior civil commitment for intemperance remained in effect?
Are orders denying probation and denying a motion to reconsider probation appealable?
Does Penal Code section 1493 authorize a motion to change custody from the Director of Corrections to the Department of Mental Hygiene in this context?

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“there is nothing in the law of California which forbids pronouncement of judgment in a criminal case just because a defendant has theretofore been adjudged an intemperate person.”

DRAPEAU, J.

Defendant was charged by information with the crime of issuing a check without sufficient funds, and with two prior felony convictions. The information was filed July 20, 1950. After defendant was arraigned there were a number of continuances. The court’s minutes recite that one of these continuances was granted for the purpose of instituting civil intemperance proceedings against defendant; and that thereafter there was filed a certified copy of a judgment and order of another department of the superior court, committing defendant to the Department of Mental Hygiene; whereupon this cause was ordered off calendar. That order was made August 18, 1950.

Defendant was sent to Patton State Hospital, pursuant to the inebriacy commitment. Then in a few weeks he was released from the hospital and placed under supervision of the Bureau of Social Work in Los Angeles. While so at large he was apprehended and returned to the superior court for further proceedings under the information.

On November 30, 1950, he appeared, with his counsel, and time to plead to the information was set for December 6, 1950. At the time set he pleaded guilty, admitted the prior convictions, and applied for probation. After hearing, his application for probation was denied, and he was sentenced to the state prison for the term prescribed by law. This sentence was made to run concurrently with the sentence from which he was then on parole.

[89]

After the judgment, defendant’s counsel moved the court for an order reconsidering defendant’s application for probation ; also for an order placing defendant in the custody of the Department of Mental Hygiene, rather than the Director of Corrections.

Defendant appeals from the orders denying both motions. He states, “The question therefore is this: Did Department 41 have jurisdiction to consider the original charge and sentence appellant under that charge while the order of commitment made by Department 54 was unrevoked and in full force and effect?”

The first ground of appeal may be summarily disposed of. As there can be no appeal from an order denying probation

(People

People v. Mason

AI Brief

DRAPEAU, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief