People v. Pruett

California Court of Appeal Mar 7, 1973 No. Crim. 21914Published

Before: Kingsley

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the exclusion of a defendant from the California Narcotics Rehabilitation Center based on excessive criminality and assaultive behavior does not require the due process protections mandated by Morrissey v. Brewer for parole or probation revocation.

Issues

Whether a defendant's prior criminal history can be used as a basis for exclusion from the narcotics rehabilitation center after initial commitment.
Whether the due process requirements of Morrissey v. Brewer apply to the administrative decision to exclude a person from the narcotics rehabilitation center.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The administrative decision that those purposes can best be carried out in an institution, and under programs other than at the rehabilitation center, is not one which requires, or admits, of the kind of preliminary hearing that Morrissey contemplates.”

“But a person committed to the rehabilitation center has not been granted any liberty—qualified or unqualified. He has been subjected to incarceration, in a security institution.”

Opinion

KINGSLEY, J.

In three informations appellant was charged with 10 separate felony violations. In case A272004 appellant pleaded guilty to second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). In case A117626 appellant pleaded guilty to first degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). On August 27, 1971, criminal proceedings were suspended in these two cases and, on September 16, 1971, appellant was committed to the California Narcotics Rehabilitation Center as a person addicted to, or likely to become addicted to, narcotics.

[3]

In case A602272 appellant pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11530.5). On September 30, 1971, the petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 3051 was amended to add the conviction in this case.

On January 31, 1972, the California Narcotics Rehabilitation Center returned appellant to superior court because of his “excessive criminality and assaultive behavior.” On April 2, 1972, a hearing was held in superior court on appellant’s exclusion from the center. Appellant was present with counsel. A representative of the center testified and appellant testified. At the close of the hearing, the court ruled that the requirements of due process were met under the provisions of appellant’s treatment at the California Rehabilitation Center and denied appellant’s motion to be returned to the center.

The court sentenced appellant to state prison in each case, the sentences to run concurrently. On April 18, 1972, appellant filed a notice of appeal from “that portion of the Judgment and Order denying defendant’s motion to be recommitted to the California Rehabilitation Center at Corona, California, after rejection therefrom.” We treat this as an appeal from each of the three judgments pronounced on April 12, 1972.

In a series of cases, it has been held that whether a criminal defendant committed to the California Narcotic Rehabilitation Center should be retained there for treatment is a matter resting primarily in the sound professional judgment of the superintendent of that institution, acting upon, but exercising an independent judgment on, the reports and recommendations of his professional and custodial staff. The superior court hearing in the case at bench fully satisfied all of the requirements which have been heretofore imposed on such a hearing. (Consult,

People v. Pruett

AI Brief

KINGSLEY, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief