People v. Woolbert

ROTH, P. J.

On October 27, 1961, appellant, following his conviction for violating Health and Safety Code, section 11532, was committed to the California Youth Authority (Authority). Approximately four and one-half months after his commitment, appellant was paroled. In November 1963, Authority petitioned the Superior Court of Los Angeles County to accept the return of appellant. On December 20, the trial court denied appellant’s request for probation and sentenced him to the state prison for the term prescribed by law. He appeals from the judgment.

Appellant contends that his return by the Authority and subsequent sentencing by the trial court show an abuse of discretion, and that he had a constitutional right to remain under the control of the Authority.

We find no merit in either contention.

Section 1737.1 of the Welfare and Institutions Code provides: “Whenever any person who has been charged with or convicted of a public offense and committed to the Authority appears to the Authority, either at the time of his presenta

[546]

tion [under section 1731.5]

1

or after having become an inmate of any institution or facility subject to the jurisdiction of the Authority, to be an improper person to be retained in any such institution or facility, or to be so incorrigible or so incapable of reformation under the discipline of the Authority as to render his retention detrimental to the interests of the Authority and the other persons committed thereto, the Authority may return him to the committing court. In the case of a person convicted of a public offense, said court may then commit him to a State prison ... as provided by law for punishment of the offense of which he was convicted.”

Under this statute the discretion conferred upon the Authority is twofold. It can determine at the outset that the potential commitee cannot be benefited by commitment to the Authority facilities; and having accepted an offender it can determine that the committee is an improper person, incorrigible or incapable of reformation, in which ease the commitee must be returned to the jurisdiction of the trial court. In each ease the decision is within the sound discretion of the Authority.