In Re Swearingen

California Supreme Court May 3, 1966 No. Crim. 9575Published

Before: McComb, Traynor, Peters, Tobriner, Peek, Mosk, Burke

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the Director of Corrections failed to follow the statutory procedure requiring a 60-day evaluation period at the rehabilitation center before determining a person is unfit for treatment. Although the petitioner was improperly rejected, the court denied the petition because the Adult Authority had already revoked his parole.

Issues

Was the petitioner improperly rejected from the rehabilitation center?
Does the 60-day evaluation requirement apply to parolees committed to the rehabilitation center?

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The language of the statute clearly requires that an evaluation be made of such persons at the rehabilitation center during a period of 60 days to determine whether or not they are fit subjects for the program.”

[520]

McCOMB, J.

Following petitioner’s plea of guilty to a charge of receiving stolen property, and proceedings conducted pursuant to section 6451 of the Penal Code (now Welf. & Inst. Code, § 3051),

the Superior Court of Los Angeles County on May 11, 1965, found petitioner to be a narcotic addict and ordered that he be committed to the California Rehabilitation Center for treatment.

At the time of his commitment, petitioner was on parole under a prior felony conviction.

Petitioner was received at the California Rehabilitation Center’s main facility at Corona on May 14, 1965, and remained there until June 21,1965, a period of 37 days.

While petitioner was at Corona, a diagnostic study of his case was made to evaluate his suitability for treatment at the center, but he was given no tests or treatment. Upon the conclusion that the “problem of criminality and need for control appears to outweigh his admissibility as a treatment candidate at this time,” petitioner was sent to Chino for hearing before the Adult Authority on June 21,1965.

The Adult Authority, following the recommendation of the superintendent of the rehabilitation center, retained jurisdiction and revoked petitioner’s parole on June 21, 1965.

After the hearing before the Adult Authority, petitioner was not returned to Corona, but was kept at the Reception-Guidance Center of the California Institution for Men (Chino), which has been designated a branch of the rehabilitation center (see

In re Cruz,

62 Cal.2d 307, 319, fn. 10 [42 Cal.Rptr. 220, 398 P.2d 412]), pending his return to court.

On July 19, 1965, the superintendent of the rehabilitation center, by the authority granted him by the Director of Corrections under section 5055 of the Penal Code, certified to the superior court that petitioner was not a fit subject for confinement or treatment in the rehabilitation center program.

Thereafter, the superior court directed that petitioner be returned and detained in the Los Angeles County Jail pending further proceedings on the stolen property charge. Petitioner

In Re Swearingen

AI Brief

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief