People v. Broady

FOX, J.

Defendant was charged in three counts with violating section 288 of the Penal Code. Initially, he entered a plea of not guilty. Thereafter, on September 18, 1952, by leave of court and with his counsel present, defendant withdrew his plea of not guilty as to count I and entered a plea of guilty. On October 10, 1952, after considering the doctors’ reports filed pursuant to section 5505 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, the court found defendant to be a sexual psychopath as defined in section 5500 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and ordered him committed to the Norwalk State Hospital for a period of 90 days for observation and diagnosis under section 5512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. Defendant having been returned to court following this 90-day observation period was again found to be a sexual psycopath, and it was also found he would not benefit from further treatment in a state hospital. Having changed counsel, on March 9, 1953 defendant moved to vacate his previous plea of guilty to count I and also made a motion for a new trial. These motions were denied as was his application for probation and he was sentenced to the state prison. Defendant, on March 12th, appealed from the judgment and sentence and from the order denying his motion for a new trial, and also from the order denying his motion to vacate his plea of guilty.

There is no appeal from a sentence.

(People

v.

Ray,

13 Cal.App. 2d 701, 703 [57 P.2d 975].) There is likewise no appeal from, an order denying a motion made before judgment to set aside a plea of guilty (Pen. Code, § 1237), but such an order may be reviewed on the appeal from the judgment.

(People

v.

Morgan,

9 Cal.App.2d 612, 617 [50 P.2d 1061].) These purported appeals must, therefore, be dismissed.

Defendant seeks a reversal of the judgment on the theory that he did not fully comprehend the effect of changing his plea from not guilty to guilty, and in support thereof relies on the fact that the court found him to be a sexual psycopath.

Although

defendant was adjudged a sexual psycopath this does not mean he was insane or incapable of understanding the nature of the proceedings or the consequences of