In Re O'Neil

Opinion

PUGLIA, P. J.

--On March 25, 1970, after having entered a plea of guilty to a charge of violating section 11912 (now § 11379) of the Health and Safety Code, petitioner was found to be a narcotics addict within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 3051 and was committed to the California Rehabilitation Center (CRC) for treatment.

During the ensuing years, petitioner absconded from CRC supervision for a total of 7 months and 25 days and was declared to be .a “releasee-at-large” for that period of time. The Director of Corrections deducted petitioner’s “at-large” time from the computation of time expired since petitioner’s commitment to CRC and delayed petitioner’s discharge date accordingly.

(1a) Petitioner filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus contending that the Director of Corrections had unlawfully reset his discharge date, causing petitioner to be restrained at CRC for a period exceeding the seven-year maximum commitment period provided in Welfare and Institutions Code section 3201. The contention is unavailing.

Welfare and Institutions Code section 3201 provides in pertinent part, as follows: “If a person committed pursuant to this chapter has not been discharged from the program prior to expiration of seven years, the Director of Corrections shall, on the expiration of such period, return him to the court from which he was committed, which court shall discharge him from the program and order him returned to the court in which criminal proceedings were adjourned, or the imposition of sentence suspended, prior to his commitment or certification to the superior court; . . .’’ The thrust of petitioner’s argument is that the seven-year commitment imposed by section 3201 may not be tolled by reason of petitioner’s status as a “releasee-at-large.”

[123]

(2) In construing a statute, a court should ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law.

{Bravo

v.

Cabell

(1974) 11 Cal.3d 834, 838 [114 Cal.Rptr. 618, 523 P.2d 658].) Moreover, statutory construction which leads to absurd consequences should be avoided.