People v. Pate

California Court of Appeal May 10, 1965 No. Crim. 4659Published

Before: Agee

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A trial court has the authority to review whether the Director of Corrections abused their discretion in rejecting a defendant from the narcotics rehabilitation program. Because the trial court erroneously believed it lacked the power to review the Director's decision, the case must be remanded for the court to determine if the rejection was an abuse of discretion.

Issues

Whether the Director of Corrections' decision to reject a defendant from the narcotics rehabilitation program is subject to judicial review.
Whether the trial court erred in believing it was bound by the Director's decision and lacked the authority to evaluate the propriety of the rejection.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The instant cause should be remanded to the court below to determine whether the director’s refusal to accept defendant for treatment as a narcotic addict was an abuse of his discretion.”

AGEE, J.

J. — Following plea of guilty to second degree burglary and proceedings conducted pursuant to section 6451 of the Penal Code, the superior court found defendant to be a narcotic addict and ordered that he be committed to the

[274]

California Rehabilitation Center for care and treatment. He was received at the Reception Guidance Center at Vacaville, California, on February 14, 1964 and remained there until April 28, 1964. He was not given any treatment while there.

On April 15, 1964 the Director of Corrections notified the committing court that defendant was not a fit subject for confinement or treatment in the California Rehabilitation Center and that he was being returned to the court for further proceedings as provided by section 6453 of the Penal Code.

On May 21, 1964 the court modified defendant’s plea of guilty to second degree burglary to a plea of guilty of attempted burglary of the second degree and sentenced him to state prison. Defendant has appealed from the judgment entered on that date.

The sole issue on appeal relates to the propriety of the action taken by the Director of Corrections in rejecting defendant for treatment and returning him to the court.

Section 6453 of the Penal Code provides as follows: “ If at any time after 60 days following receipt of a person at the facility, the Director of Corrections concludes that the person, because of excessive criminality or for other relevant reason, is not a fit subject for confinement or treatment in such narcotic detention, treatment and rehabilitation facility, he shall return the person to the court in which the case originated for such further proceedings on the criminal charges as that court may deem warranted.”

In returning the defendant to the court, the Director of Corrections did not base his reason for doing so upon defendant’s “excessive criminality.” Therefore, the validity of the return must rest upon the second basis, “other relevant reason.”

The reason given is stated in the April 15, 1964 notice to the court, as follows: ‘ ‘ Our records indicate that Richard H. Pate was under active parole supervision of the Department of Corrections at the time of his commitment to the California Rehabilitation Center. By agreement of Mr. Richard A. McGee, Administrator, Youth and Adult Corrections Agency, and Mr. Walter Dunbar, Director of Corrections, the California Rehabilitation Center program is reserved for those individuals not now under supervisory control of the Department. ’ ’

People v. Pate

AI Brief

AGEE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief