People v. Reynoso

BURKE, J.

This cause was transferred to this court after decision by the District Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District. On further examination of the record, we adopt the opinion of that court prepared by Mr. Justice Whelan

(People

v.

Reynoso

(Cal.App.) 47 Cal.Rptr. 250), with such omissions and additions as hereinafter appear, as and for the opinion of this court. As modified it reads:

[434]

Defendant appeals from a judgment imposed October 30, 1964, sentencing him to prison for a violation of section 11500, Health and Safety Code (possession of heroin), after his plea of guilty entered July 19,1963.

While an inmate of the California Rehabilitation Center in San Bernardino County, defendant was charged with possession of heroin that probably had been smuggled into the facility by his wife. He pleaded guilty to the charge, was determined by the court to be addicted to the use of narcotics after criminal proceedings were suspended for the purpose of a hearing upon the question of addiction, and was again committed to the California Rehabilitation Center for care and treatment.

His earlier commitment to the center, on October 18, 1962, had followed his conviction in the Superior Court of Orange County of a violation of section 11501, Health and Safety Code.

After his second commitment to the rehabilitation center, defendant, on July 15, 1964, because of procedural defects in the two commitments, obtained his release on a writ of habeas corpus issued by the Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County which ordered defendant remanded to the Superior Court of San Bernardino County for further proceedings in the criminal matter. After defendant’s application for probation had been passed upon and denied, the judgment appealed from followed. Sentence was made concurrent with any other unexpired sentence.

1

Defendant contends as follows:

1. That the commitment to the California Rehabilitation Center for care and treatment as a narcotic addict was a penal sentence for the crime he had committed; that the judgment sentencing him to prison for the same offense is a double punishment which is prohibited by section 654, Penal Code.