People v. Woods

California Court of Appeal Aug 22, 1978 No. Crim. 8906Published

Before: Brown (Gerald)

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to directly review the reasonableness of municipal court probation conditions in an appeal from a superior court narcotic commitment order, as such matters must be addressed by the appellate department of the superior court.

Issues

Is an order revoking probation in municipal court an appealable order?
Does Penal Code section 1237.5 require a certificate of probable cause for appeals from municipal court?
Does the Court of Appeal have jurisdiction to review municipal court probation conditions following a superior court narcotic commitment?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Revocation of probation affects substantial rights. Here the revocation order followed an order deemed to be a final judgment within the meaning of section 1466. It follows the order revoking probation was appealable.”

“We are persuaded the Legislature did not intend that result.”

“In short, appealable judgments and orders of the inferior courts are to remain within the appellate jurisdiction of the appellate department of the superior court.”

[152]

Opinion

BROWN (Gerald), P. J.

Deborah Lynn Woods appeals an order committing her to the California Rehabilitation Center (CRC) for treatment of her drug addiction (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 3050).

Deborah’s commitment stemmed from the revocation of her probation in the municipal court. She seeks to challenge the reasonableness of the violated probation conditions.

Deborah was charged with a petty theft committed on December 12, 1976. She later pled guilty to a lesser charge of disturbing the peace. On August 19, 1977, the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Deborah on probation for one year on condition;

“(1) that she serve 7 days in custody of the Sheriff, credit 2 days already served;

“(2) that she participate in counseling if and when directed to do so by the Probation Officer and not terminate said counseling without the written permission of the P/O;

“(3) that she submit to the testing for the illegal use of controlled substances when requested to do so by the Probation Officer or any Peace Officer;

“(4) that she not enter the Republic of Mexico;

“(5) that she submit her person, property, place of residence or abode, vehicle, personal effects to search at any time when requested to do so by the P/O;

“(6) that she not use or possess any controlled substances without a valid prescription;

“(7) that she report to the P/O if and when directed to do so.”

On December 7, 1977, a supplemental probation report was filed concerning Deborah and she was ordered to show cause why probation should not be revoked.

[153]

On February 3, 1978, the municipal court revoked Deborah’s probation and entered a minute order reading:

People v. Woods

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief