In Re Morales

California Court of Appeal Jan 28, 1981 No. 11967Published

Before: Brown (Gerald)

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the legislative provision limiting the 1980 amendment of Welfare and Institutions Code section 3201 to prospective application is unconstitutional because it creates an arbitrary classification based solely on the date of the offense. Consequently, the amendment applies retroactively to all narcotics addicts committed to the California Rehabilitation Center.

Issues

Whether the prospective-only application of the 1980 amendment to Welfare and Institutions Code section 3201 violates equal protection.
Whether the court may invalidate the prospective-only clause of the amendment while maintaining the remainder of the statute.

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude the Legislature may not limit the 1980 amendment to Welfare and Institutions Code section 3201 to persons who committed their offenses after July 29, 1980, and accordingly section 9 of Statutes 1980, chapter 822, is invalid.”

“Although we thus conclude the section of the amendment mandating prospectivity is entirely invalid, and cannot be rewritten by this court, we do not find the remainder of the statute invalid.”

115 Cal.App.3d 456 (1981) 171 Cal. Rptr. 425 In re RALPH MORALES on Habeas Corpus.

Docket No. 11967. Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One.

January 28, 1981. [458] COUNSEL

Quin Denvir, State Public Defender, and Richard Lennon, Deputy State Public Defender, for Petitioner. [459] George Deukmejian, Attorney General, Robert H. Philibosian, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Daniel J. Kremer, Assistant Attorney General, Harley D. Mayfield, A. Wells Petersen, Jay M. Bloom and Michael D. Wellington, Deputy Attorneys General, for Respondent.

OPINION

BROWN (Gerald), P.J.

Ralph Morales petitions for immediate release, alleging he is unconstitutionally confined in the California Rehabilitation Center (CRC) for a longer period than the determinate sentence for the underlying criminal offense.

On January 15, 1975, when Morales was convicted of illegally possessing a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12021), the offense was punishable either as a felony with a maximum term of 15 years in prison or as a misdemeanor in county jail.[1] Sentence was not imposed; Morales was civilly committed as a narcotic addict to the CRC. The maximum term of commitment for a narcotic addict when Morales was committed was seven years. However, by legislative amendment to Welfare and Institutions Code section 3201 (eff. July 29, 1980) the term of a CRC commitment for those who commit crimes after its effective date is limited to the determinate sentence for the underlying offense. (Stats. 1980, ch. 822, § 8, p. 2588.) That amendment expressly applies prospectively only. (Id. § 9.)

Because Morales has never been sentenced for his offense, we do not know whether (1) his offense would be treated as a felony or a misdemeanor, (2) the court would impose a 15-year term or something less, and (3) the Board of Prison Terms, in recomputing his sentence under the determinate sentence law, would treat him as a serious offender or impose the determinate sentence now prescribed for his offense.

In Re Morales

AI Brief

OPINION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOTES

AI Brief