People v. O'LEA

California Court of Appeal May 25, 1971 No. Crim. 17772Published

Before: Herndon

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a trial court retains jurisdiction to initiate mentally disordered sex offender (MDSO) proceedings following a probation revocation, even if such proceedings are not contemporaneous with the original criminal conviction.

Issues

Whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction to commit the appellant as an MDSO because the commitment was not contemporaneous with his prior criminal convictions.
Whether the 1969 MDSO commitment was barred by the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel due to a prior 1965 commitment and discharge.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We hold that appellant’s repeated convictions of indecent exposure and his violation of the terms of probation granted him after such convictions by committing still another sex crime within the period of his probation provided a clearly sufficient legal basis for the proceedings culminating in the challenged order.”

“The court retained jurisdiction over appellant since his probation was revoked for good cause during the probationary period.”

“Neither res judicata nor the related doctrine of collateral estoppel is applicable.”

Opinion

HERNDON, J.

Appellant challenges the validity of the order of the court below entered on October 3, 1969, declaring him to be a mentally disordered sex offender (hereinafter referred to as MDSO) within the meaning of the applicable provisions of the Welfare and Institutions Code and committing him for placement in an institutional unit for the treatment of such offenders in a facility of the Department of Corrections for an indefinite period.

We find no merit in appellant’s contention that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to make the order of commitment because it was not made contemporaneously with either of two prior judgments convicting him of indecent exposure. We hold that appellant’s repeated convictions of indecent exposure and his violation of the terms of probation granted him after such convictions by committing still another sex crime within the period of his probation provided a clearly sufficient legal basis for the proceedings culminating in the challenged order. We find no procedural error.

Relevant Procedural History

On July 13, 1964, appellant pleaded guilty of violating Penal Code section 314, subdivision 1, indecent exposure, and admitted a prior conviction of the same offense in 1961 as alleged in the information. Doctors were appointed to determine whether appellant was an MDSO and criminal

[837]

proceedings were adjourned. In August of 1964, after MDSO proceedings which need not be detailed, appellant was returned to the court, criminal proceedings were resumed^ and he was granted probation for six years upon the conditions, among others, that he pay a fine, obey all laws and cooperate in a plan for psychiatric and other treatment. No appeal was taken from this judgment.

In June of 1965, appellant again pleaded guilty to another charge of indecent exposure. Probation under the 1964 conviction was revoked and appellant was found a probable MDSO. Criminal proceedings were adjourned and appellant was committed to the Atascadero State Hospital for a 90-day period of observation. On his return from the hospital, pursuant to the report of the superintendent, the court found appellant to be an MDSO. He was committed for placement in the Atascadero State Hospital for an indeterminate period for the 1964 conviction to run concurrently with the 1965 conviction.

People v. O'LEA

AI Brief

HERNDON, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief