People v. Hunter

California Court of Appeal Mar 14, 1969 No. Crim. 3531Published

Before: Brown (Gerald)

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a trial court's failure to advise a defendant of their rights to reply and produce witnesses under Welfare and Institutions Code section 5503 invalidates a commitment order, and such rights cannot be waived by counsel alone.

Issues

Whether the trial court's failure to advise the defendant of his rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 5503 invalidates the commitment order.
Whether a defendant's rights to reply and produce witnesses in mentally disordered sex offender proceedings can be waived by counsel without the defendant's personal knowledge and consent.

Disposition. Reversed in part and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The court’s failure to give the information section 5503 requires it to give makes invalid the February 21, 1968, order adjudging Hunter a probable mentally disordered sex offender.”

“There can be no waiver without knowledge of the rights waived.”

“we hold any waiver of a defendant’s rights to reply and produce witnesses must be made personally by the defendant, under circumstances reasonably indicating he knows the rights he is waiving.”

BROWN (Gerald), P. J.

Henry William Hunter pleaded guilty of kidnaping (Pen. Code, § 209), two counts of rape (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. 4) and robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). The court adjourned proceedings and certified him for examination and hearing as a probable mentally disordered sex offender. Two medical examiners, Doctors Lengyel and Hepner, prepared reports diagnosing Hunter as a mentally disordered sex offender and recommending he be sent to Atascadero State Hospital for further study.

A hearing on the certification and examination of Hunter was held February 21, 1968. Doctor Lengyel testified Hunter had a serious psychosexual deviation; an added feature of schizophrenia was indicated; and Hunter had no impulse control. He recommended further study at Atascadero State Hospital. Doctor Hepner concurred in Doctor Lengyel’s diagnosis and recommendation. Hunter’s counsel states: “Your Honor, I would ask that the Court follow the recommendation and that he have further study at Atascadero.” Hunter did not testify, present any witnesses, or make any statement at the hearing.

The court ordered Hunter committed temporarily in Atascadero State Hospital for a period not to exceed 90 days for observation and diagnosis. On April 30,1968, the superintendent and medical director of Atascadero State Hospital reported Hunter was a mentally disordered sex offender, but was not amenable to hospital treatment. The court ordered Hunter returned to San Diego for further proceedings. On May 16, 1968, the-court sentenced ■ Hunter to state prison. Execution of sentence on all but the kidnaping count was stayed pending any appeal and during service of sentence.oh the kidnaping count, the stay to become permanent upon completing service of that sentence. •

At no time did the court inform Hunter he bad' a

[685]

right to reply and to produce witnesses, in relation to the allegation he was a mentally disordered sex offender, as is required by Welfare and Institutions Code, section 5503. This advice should have been given at the time the court told Hunter he was “certified or alleged to be a mentally disordered sex offender.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5503.) The Attorney General candidly and commendably concedes the procedural error. The court’s failure to give the information section 5503 requires it to give makes invalid the February 21, 1968, order adjudging Hunter a probable mentally disordered sex offender. The point is not moot because Hunter “is entitled to an opportunity to clear his name of the adjudication that he is a probable mentally disordered sex offender” and the matter is relevant to questions of probation and parole

People v. Hunter

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief