People v. Brooks

BURKE, P. J.

Defendant Harold Brooks, whose true name is Harold J. Brooks, was charged by an information filed by the District Attorney of Los Angeles County accusing him of the crime of incest in three counts and of the crime of violation of section 288 of the Penal Code in three counts. The public defender was appointed as counsel for defendant and he entered a plea of not guilty. Defendant personally and all counsel waived trial by jury, witnesses were sworn and testified on behalf of the People and defendant testified on his own behalf. The court found him guilty as charged in Counts II, IV and VI (violation of Pen. Code, § 288) and not guilty as to the counts charging incest (Counts I, III and V). Probation and sentence and determination of sexual psychopathy were continued. Doctors were appointed under the provisions of section 5504 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. On the date set for the hearing defendant was found to be a probable sexual psychopath and was committed to the State Hospital at Atascadero for a period of not to exceed 90 days. Subsequently a verified report of the superintendent of that hospital was received indicating that defendant could be benefited by treatment and he was ordered committed pursuant to section 5512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code to the State Hospital at Atascadero for an indeterminate period.

On September 15, 1960, pursuant to a letter from the superintendent of the hospital and on request of counsel for defendant, the sheriff was directed to return the defendant for further proceedings on September 29, 1960. On the latter date the matter was continued to October 6 at which time defendant’s motion for a new trial was argued and denied and he was remanded to the custody of the sheriff who was ordered to return him to the State Hospital at Atascadero.

Thereafter, in propria persona, defendant filed a notice of appeal from the denial of the motion for a new trial under rule 31 of the Rules of Appeal permitting such an appeal where no judgment or order granting probation has been made but where the defendant has been committed pursuant to provisions of the sexual psychopathy law. (See

Thurmond

v.

Superior Court,

49 Cal.2d 17 [314 P.2d 6].)

[429]