People v. Beckett

KAUS, P. J. On March 1, 1966, defendant Virginia Catherine Beckett pleaded guilty to three counts of forgery. (Pen. Code, § 470.) On June 20 her motion to withdraw the plea of guilty and her motion for a new trial1 were denied. On June [14630], criminal proceedings were adjourned and she was committed to the Director of Corrections for observation and diagnosis pursuant to section 1203.03 of the Penal Code. She then filed a notice of appeal from the orders denying her motion for a new trial and her motion to withdraw her plea of guilty as well as from the order committing her pursuant to section 1203.03. At the same time bail on appeal was fixed at $2,000 plus penalty assessment2 and a stay of execution until October 10, 1966, was granted. Bail was posted and defendant was released. On July 22, 1966, defendant filed a written statement pursuant to section 1237.5 of the Penal Code and on August 2 the trial court certified that there was probable cause for her appeals.

None of the orders from which defendant has purported to appeal are appealable. There never has been a judgment in this case on the appeal from which the orders being questioned would be reviewable. Denials of motions for new trial are separately appealable only where the defendant is committed for sexual psychopathy, insanity or narcotics addiction.

Defendant argues that her commitment for observation under section 1203.03 of the Penal Code was a special proceeding and appealable as a final judgment in such proceeding under section 963 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (In re De La O, 59 Cal.2d 128, 156 [28 Cal.Rptr. 489, 378 P.2d 793, 98 A.L.R.2d 705]; People v. Gross, 44 Cal.2d 859, 860 [285 P. 2d 630].) We disagree. In People v. Gross, supra, it was held that sexual psychopathy proceedings, as they were then called, were special proceedings within the meaning of section 963 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In In re De La O the same result was reached with respect to narcotic commitments.

The type of proceedings under consideration in Gross and De La O are separate from the criminal proceedings. A commitment under section 1203.03 of the Penal Code is an integral part of the criminal probation and sentencing process. If the Legislature had decided that an order for commitment under that section be separately appealable, it would have so provided in the Penal Code. It did not do so.

Defendant also relies on Thurmond v. Superior Court, 49 [147]