In Re Leyva

California Court of Appeal May 29, 1970 No. Crim. 17826Published

Before: Kingsley

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court granted a writ of habeas corpus, directing the superior court to hold an evidentiary hearing on the petitioner's claims of an invalid guilty plea and the state's defense of laches, with instructions to vacate the commitment if the allegations are proven.

Issues

Whether a petitioner who entered a guilty plea without counsel based on alleged misrepresentations is entitled to relief via habeas corpus.
Whether the remedy of a motion to set aside a plea in municipal court is exclusive of habeas corpus relief.
Whether the issue of laches should be determined in an evidentiary hearing regarding the validity of the underlying plea.

Disposition. Writ granted with directions

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The interests of justice require that petitioner be given relief in this court, where his appeal from the section 6327 order is pending”

“that remedy is not exclusive.”

“if petitioner’s allegations are true, a jurisdictional prerequisite to any proceedings under the Mentally Disordered Sex Offender Act was missing, since his plea and the finding of guilty were void.”

Opinion

KINGSLEY, J.

In November of 1965, petitioner was arrested on charges of assault and of attempted rape. Ultimately he pled guilty, in the Municipal Court of the El Monte Judicial District, to a charge of battery. He was certified to the Superior Court for Los Angeles, County for proceedings under the Mentally Disordered Sex Offender Act. Those proceedings ultimately resulted in an order, pursuant to section 5512 (now § 6316) of the Welfare and Institutions Code, committing him to the Department of Mental Hygiene for an indeterminate period. On June 16, 1967, he petitioned the superior court for a writ of

coram nobis.

That petition was denied. His appeal from the order of denial was dismissed by Division Two of this court on the ground that his remedy, if any, was other than by

coram nobis

in the superior court.

(People

Leyva

(1969) 2d Crim. No. 14728 (unpublished opinion).)

Petitioner then applied, in the superior court, pursuant to section 6327 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, for a return to that court for a hearing on his claim that he was no longer in need of treatment under the order of commitment. That motion was summarily denied and he appealed the order of denial to this court, where the appeal is now pending. (2d Civ. No. 17313.)

[406]

In the meantime, he filed, in the Supreme Court, the present petition for habeas corpus; that petition was duly transferred by the Supreme Court to this court for hearing and disposition. We issued an order to show cause why it should not be granted. A return to the order was duly filed; the matter has been argued and submitted. For the reasons set forth below we grant the writ.

The petition before us alleges that petitioner entered his plea in the municipal .court, without counsel, and on the representation made to him by a deputy sheriff to the effect that if he pled guilty to the charge of battery he would receive no more than a short jail sentence; and he alleges that no one had ever explained to him the possibility of proceedings under the Mentally Disordered Sex Offender Act, much less that such proceedings might result (as they actually did) in what amounts to a possible life commitment.

In Re Leyva

AI Brief

KINGSLEY, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief