People v. Santana

California Court of Appeal Aug 1, 1962 No. Crim. 8131Published

Before: Fox

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. Under Welfare and Institutions Code section 1731.5, once a court refers a youthful offender to the Youth Authority and the Authority certifies that the offender can be materially benefited by its program, the court is mandatorily required to commit the offender to the Authority.

Issues

Whether the trial court has discretion to deny commitment to the Youth Authority after the Authority has accepted a youthful offender under Welfare and Institutions Code section 1731.5.
Whether orders denying probation and dismissing counts are appealable under Penal Code section 1237.

Disposition. Reversed with directions; appeals from orders dismissed.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The language is clear—“The court shall thereupon commit said person to the authority.” There is no room for interpretation. No exception is provided.”

“By the express provision of the statute, supported by the philosophy underlying its enactment, appellant should have been committed to the Youth Authority rather than sentenced to state prison.”

FOX, P. J.

Defendant was charged with six counts of violating the state narcotic laws. These charges involved either alleged possession or sale of marijuana and possession or sale of heroin. When defendant appeared in Superior Court for arraignment, his counsel informed the court that defendant was 19 years of age and had

“been

addicted to narcotics” and “was at Camarillo [state hospital] for some little time”; “the family [having] had him voluntarily committed there.” Counsel also stated to the court that, anticipating that the defendant would be referred either to the Youth Authority or to the state hospital for treatment, he was willing to enter a plea of guilty at that time to count

five—possession

of heroin. The prosecutor advised the court that he was not familiar with the facts in the ease and was “not prepared to accept the plea at this time.” The court inquired about putting the plea over for a week. While counsel for defendant indicated this was agreeable, he was nevertheless anxious to expedite the matter so that defendant would not “stay in the county jail on dead time.” The court thereupon decided to accept a plea of guilty to one charge of

selling

heroin. Upon being arraigned, defendant entered a plea of guilty to count three, in which he was charged with selling heroin. The matter was referred to the Probation Department and was set for hearing on probation and sentence on August 24, and defendant was referred to the Youth Authority to ascertain whether or not the Authority would accept him. The Probation Department was directed to get its report out as soon as possible.

When the matter came on for hearing for probation and sentence on August 24, the court advised counsel that the Youth Authority said they would accept defendant. The court, however, further advised counsel that “I don’t see how I can send this boy to the Youth Authority with the quantity of narcotics that are involved here.” The court thereupon denied probation and sentenced defendant to the state prison for the term prescribed by law. Defendant has appealed, contending that since he had been referred to the

[320]

People v. Santana

AI Brief

FOX, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief