People v. Clark

California Supreme Court Sep 1, 1970 No. Crim. 13072Published

Before: Mosk

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court had the jurisdiction to strike the defendant's prior convictions in the interests of justice, as the statute requiring prosecutorial consent for such actions is unconstitutional. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's order without reaching the constitutional issue of cruel and unusual punishment.

Issues

Whether Health and Safety Code section 11718, which prohibits trial courts from striking prior convictions without the district attorney's motion, is constitutional.
Whether a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence for narcotics possession constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“we overrule Sidener and hold that section 11718 is invalid because it encroaches upon the constitutional province of the judiciary and violates the doctrine of separation of powers.”

“It follows that the trial court in the case at bar had jurisdiction to strike the defendant’s prior convictions in the interests of justice.”

“And as the order appealed from is thus supported on an independently sufficient ground, it must be affirmed.”

Opinion

MOSK, J.

We treat this case as a companion to

People

Tenorio, ante,

p. 89 [89 Cal.Rptr. 249, 473 P.2d 993],

Defendant was charged, inter alia, with unlawful possession of a narcotic, to wit, Percodan, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11500. He pleaded guilty, and admitted two prior convictions of narcotics offenses. After spending two years in the civil commitment program for narcotics addicts, he was rejected therefrom and returned to court for sentencing on the original criminal charge. (Former Pen. Code, § 6453, now Welf. & Inst. Code, § 3053.)

Then as now, Health and Safety Code section 11500 imposed a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years without possibility of probation or parole on any person convicted of unlawful possession of narcotics with two or more prior narcotics convictions, and section 11718 prohibited trial courts from striking such priors except upon motion of the district attorney. Here the judge recognized that no such motion had been made, but struck defendant’s two priors nevertheless and sentenced him as a first offender. In so doing, the judge acted on two grounds: first, he respectfully called upon this court to reexamine its decision in

People

Sidener

(1962)

[99]

58 Cal.2d 645 [25 Cal.Rptr. 697, 375 P.2d 641], which upheld the validity of section 11718; second, he ruled that a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence for possession of narcotics would be “brutal,” i.e., would violate the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. (U.S. Const., 8th Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 6.)

The People appealed from the order of dismissal of the prior convictions, relying heavily on

Sidener.

People v. Clark

AI Brief

MOSK, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief