People v. Gifford

California Court of Appeal Mar 26, 1974 No. Crim. 23560Published

Before: Kingsley

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the procedural requirements of Morrissey v. Brewer and People v. Vickers were not violated because the defendant's intervening burglary conviction rendered him ineligible for further rehabilitation commitment, making a preliminary inquiry unnecessary.

Issues

Whether the trial court failed to comply with Morrissey v. Brewer and People v. Vickers regarding the defendant's return from the California Rehabilitation Center.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In the case at bench, any necessity for a preliminary inquiry was obviated.”

“Defendant’s conviction and incarceration on the burglary charge rendered him ineligible for further commitment to the center, as a matter of law.”

“No purpose would be served by remanding this case to the trial court, merely to advise defendant formally, in writing, of what he already knew at the time of the sentence now before us.”

Opinion

KINGSLEY, J.

On August 28, 1969, defendant was found guilty of selling, furnishing and giving away marijuana, in violation of section 11531 (now § 11360) of the Health and Safety Code. Criminal proceedings were suspended and he was committed to the California Rehabilitation Center. In October of 1970, he was released from the center on outpatient status. On December. 18, 1971, while on that out-patient status, he was arrested for burglary. He pled guilty to that offense and was sentenced to state prison. As a result of that conviction, he was returned from the Rehabilitation Center, criminal proceedings were resumed and he was

[91]

sentenced to state prison on the narcotic charge, with credit for time served, the sentence to run concurrently with the sentence in the burglary matter.

Defendant has appealed, contending only that the proceedings after his return to court from the Rehabilitation Center did not conform to the requirements of

Morrissey

Brewer

(1972) 408 U.S. 471 [33 L.Ed.2d 484, 92 S.Ct. 2593], and

People

Vickers

(1972) 8 Cal.3d 451 [105 Cal.Rptr. 305, 503 P.2d 1313]. We disagree.

The two-stage hearings required under

Morrissey

and

Vickers

are designed to insure that a person who has been granted conditional release from a penal institution shall not be deprived of that liberty without a hearing and that he shall not be detained pending such a hearing for an undue time without at least some preliminary inquiry into the grounds for his reincarceration.

People v. Gifford

AI Brief

KINGSLEY, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief