People v. Turner

California Court of Appeal Jan 21, 1975 No. Crim. 6808Published

Before: Brown (Gerald)

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that police reports are admissible in probation revocation hearings because such proceedings are not criminal trials and do not require the same strict evidentiary standards, and that the defendant's claims regarding his original plea bargain were either procedurally barred or meritless.

Issues

Whether the admission of police reports in a probation revocation hearing violates due process or the right to confront witnesses.
Whether the defendant was denied his right to confront witnesses when he failed to request their presence.
Whether the defendant's challenges to his original plea bargain are barred for failure to comply with Penal Code section 1237.5.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing the defendant to prison following a probation violation.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The proceeding against Turner was a probation revocation hearing, not a criminal trial.”

“Whether the report is admissible in a criminal trial is not controlling; rather we look to see if the court “has reason to believe the facts disclosed by such sources.””

“The right to confront witnesses applies only to witnesses against Turner (U.S. Const., Sixth Amend.).”

Opinion

BROWN (Gerald), P. J.

Ricky D. Turner appeals the order revoking his probation and the judgment sentencing him to prison.

On December 15, 1972, Turner pled guilty to a charge of burglary with the stipulation that any time served would be local. At sentencing the trial court rejected the stipulation. Turner withdrew his plea, a new information was filed, and a trial was begun. Following a mistrial, a new guilty plea was entered on September 12, 1973, in which Turner’s prior conviction was stricken and local time was stipulated; on October 3, 1973, he was granted three years’ probation.

There was an armed robbery of the T G & Y store in National City on October 30, 1973. Although Turner was charged with this crime, charges were dropped when eyewitnesses were unable to identify him as the perpetrator. On March 22, 1974, Turner’s probation was revoked; on April 4, 1974, he was sentenced to prison for the term prescribed by law.

Turner now complains he was denied due process and the opportunity to confront witnesses because police reports covering the investigation of the robbery were accepted into evidence at the hearing. He argues these interviews with witnesses are hearsay which were not properly introduced as past recollection recorded (Evid. Code, § 1237) or as prior inconsistent statements (Evid. Code, §§ 770, 1235). The proceeding against Turner was a probation revocation hearing, not a criminal trial.

“ ‘We emphasize there is no thought to equate this second stage of parole revocation [the hearing prior to final decision] to a criminal

[756]

prosecution

in any sense.

It is a narrow inquiry; the process should be flexible enough to consider evidence including letters, affidavits, and other material that would not be admissible in an adversary criminal trial.’ ” (Italics added.)

(In re Thomas,

27 Cal.App.3d 31, 36 [103 Cal.Rptr. 567], quoting

Morrissey

People v. Turner

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief