People v. Harvath

California Court of Appeal Jun 15, 1967 No. Crim. 12312, 13515Published

Before: Kingsley

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant's commitment as a mentally disordered sex offender was void because the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory statutory requirements for notice and hearing, thereby violating due process. Consequently, the court vacated the commitment orders and issued a writ of habeas corpus directing the defendant's return to the sheriff's custody for proper proceedings.

Issues

Whether the trial court's failure to provide notice and a hearing prior to committing the defendant for observation and indeterminate treatment violated due process.
Whether the commitment orders were void due to non-compliance with the procedural requirements of the Mentally Disordered Sex Offender Act.

Disposition. remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The orders of November 26,1963, of December 27, 1963, and of May 1, 1964, are vacated; the appeals are dismissed as moot.”

KINGSLEY, J.

The present ease comes before us in the form of two attempted appeals from orders of the superior court, denying requests for relief from assertedly void orders theretofore entered. By stipulation, we treat all of the documents filed herein in both appeals as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

and, for the reasons hereinafter stated, grant relief.

Defendant was charged in two counts with violation of section 288 of the Penal Code, the victim in each case being under the age of 14 years. He pied not guilty, trial by jury was duly waived, and by stipulation, the case was submitted on the transcript of the testimony given at his preliminary examination. The trial court found defendant guilty of two violations of section 272 of the Penal Code, a lesser and included offense.

Thereafter, on November 26, 1963, the trial court appointed three doctors ‘' to examine the defendant to determine whether he is a probable sexual psychopath or not.”

Although the court had earlier set a date for hearing the matters of probation and sentence, no date was set for any hearing on the matter of “sexual psychopathy,” and no statement in any way complying with section 5503 of the Welfare and Institu

[782]

tians Code,

advising defendant of his rights in that connection, was ever made.

When the ease next came before the trial court, on December 27,1963, the following proceedings took place :

‘ ‘ The Court : People versus Harvath.

“Mr. Davis: This matter was continued from last week to today, your Honor. I believe there was a recommendation from the probation officer that he be sent to Atascadero for a ninety day period.

“The Court: Do you waive further arraignment for judgment and sentence ?

People v. Harvath

AI Brief

KINGSLEY, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief