In Re Singh

BROWN (Gerald), P. J.

Petitioner seeks habeas corpus urging his commitment as a narcotic drug addict under Penal Code, section 6450 was invalid on the following grounds:

1. He was denied the right to counsel in the municipal court criminal proceedings which led to his certification to the superior court for a determination of his addiction;

2. He was denied the right to counsel in the superior court proceedings in which his addiction was determined resulting in his commitment; and

[457]

3. The court failed to serve him with notice of the hearing in the superior court on the question of his addiction.

Petitioner’s first two bases for attacking his commitment are without merit. Petitioner’s failure to completely and candidly set forth the facts concerning his representation by counsel in the municipal court, where the record shows counsel appeared in his behalf at the first hearing after his arraignment, obviates any consideration of this matter as ground for relief.

(In re Swain,

34 Cal.2d 300 [209 P.2d 793].) Upon his certification to the superior court the record shows petitioner was fully advised of his rights, understood them, freely waived them, and the court made specific findings to this effect. There was no denial of the right to counsel.

Penal Code, section 6450 requires that narcotic commitment proceedings be conducted in substantial compliance with Welfare and Institutions Code, section 5353, requiring the judge to fix a time and place for a hearing on the question of addiction. ‘

‘

Such order [is] to be entered at length in the minute book of the court or shall be signed by the judge and filed and a

certified copy thereof shall he served on. the

person." (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5353; italics ours.) “Unless the mandatory provisions of this section are substantially complied with the commitment is fatally defective.”

(In re Jones,