People v. Cooper

California Court of Appeal Feb 18, 1954 No. Crim. 5071Published

Before: Moore

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's request to withdraw his guilty plea or in denying his application for probation. The court further held that a defendant's status as a sexual psychopath does not absolve them of criminal liability or entitle them to probation.

Issues

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant's request to withdraw his guilty plea.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant's application for probation.
Whether a defendant's status as a sexual psychopath exempts them from criminal penalties or mandates probation.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Such a plea is an admission of every element of the offense charged, and constitutes a conclusive admission of defendant’s guilt.”

“The act of granting probation is vested in the sound discretion of the court which will not be disturbed except upon convincing proof that it was abused.”

“The claim that a prisoner convicted of a vicious crime should be restored to full liberty because he is diseased has no foundation in the law.”

MOORE, P. J.

Appellant was accused in six counts of having violated section 288 of the Penal Code. Three of the offenses occurred in July, 1951; three in the following August. He was arraigned on September 18th, pleaded not guilty, and his trial was set for October 23. On the latter date he appeared with his counsel, and with leave of the court withdrew his plea of not guilty and pleaded ‘ ‘ guilty as charged in Count 6.” Before accepting such plea, however, the court closely examined him as to whether his change of plea was his own act; whether he so pleaded voluntarily; whether anyone had held out a promise of a lesser sentence or any other advantage for pleading guilty. As to such inquiries, appellant assured the court that he was pleading guilty because he

[355]

was guilty. The hearing on his application for probation was set for November 8, and his counsel was then directed promptly to file the preliminary transcript with the probation officer. Also, a hearing as to the matter of his sexual psychopathy was set for November 15 and two physicians were appointed to examine the accused, and the disposition of the other five counts went over to a later date. Both doctors found appellant to be a sexual psychopath and no evidence having been submitted on behalf of the prisoner, on November 15 the court found in accordance with the expert testimony and committed the accused to the State Hospital at Norwalk for an indeterminate period not exceeding 90 days.

On February 21, 1952, appellant was returned by the hospital with a diagnosis as a sexual psychopath and was then, on the findings of the same two physicians, recommitted. He was returned on May 1, 1953, with the superintendent’s certification that the patient was no longer a menace to the health and safety of others and had received the mafimnm benefit of hospitalization, and the court set the date for the hearing on application for probation. After reviewing the judicial events pertaining to appellant from the time of his arraignment, the court denied probation, and after hearing the argument of appellant’s counsel, sentenced appellant to the state prison for the term prescribed by law, and dismissed the other counts. Prior to pronouncement of sentence, appellant’s counsel requested leave for appellant to speak. This request was denied. From the ensuing judgment comes this appeal.

People v. Cooper

AI Brief

MOORE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief