People v. Stanley

California Court of Appeal Mar 20, 1980 No. Crim. No. 3538Published

Before: Hopper

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial judge prejudged the defendant's commitment and that the failure to obtain a statutorily required evaluation from the county mental health director rendered the commitment void. The case was reversed and remanded for new proceedings before a different judge.

Issues

Whether the trial judge prejudged the defendant's commitment to a state hospital.
Whether the trial court committed prejudicial error by failing to obtain an evaluation from the county mental health director as required by Welfare and Institutions Code section 6316.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We are persuaded from the above quoted remarks, and in the light of the entire record, that the trial judge prejudged this matter necessitating that the case be reversed and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings”

“Procedural errors or omissions in mentally disordered sex offender commitment proceedings render the commitment void”

Opinion

HOPPER, J. In this case Stanley appeals from an order of the trial judge denying him outpatient treatment and committing him to Atascadero State Hospital after he had entered a plea of guilty to a charge of violation of Penal Code section 288 and mentally disordered sex offender proceedings were instituted.1

Stanley argues that the trial judge had already decided that if Stanley were determined to be a mentally disordered sex offender, state mental hospital commitment was the only disposition. After two psychiatrists were appointed, the following took place between Mr. Johnson (Stanley’s attorney) and the court:

“The Court: Let’s put it down for the 24th of October. That will be the time the Court will decide as to whether he’s a mentally disordered sex offender and if so, the Court will then commit him to the state hospital for treatment, and if the Court finds he is not a mentally disordered sex offender, the Court will then at that time sentence him. Is that satisfactory?

“Mr. Johnson: With respect to the positive statement if the Court. will commit him, whatever treatment would be necessary I think we’ll be asking for.

“The Court: I don’t follow you.

“Mr. Johnson: In other words, I don’t believe it’s mandatory he be committed to the state hospital if there is some other treatment that is suggested by the physicians.

[602]“The Court: I’m not saying I agree with that. I’ll have to take a long look at that.

“Mr. Johnson: I agree. That’s the purpose of having the doctor’s reports. Thank you, Your Honor.

“The Court: In other words, you mean treat him locally?

“Mr. Johnson: If possible. If there’s some means of doing it.

“The Court: I’ll tell you right now. The Court wouldn’t do it. Is that clear? If he’s a mentally disordered sex offender, he’s going to the state hospital for treatment. If he’s not, the Court will take other steps not as you have stated.”

We are persuaded from the above quoted remarks, and in the light of the entire record, that the trial judge prejudged this matter necessitating that the case be reversed and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings before a different judge. At those new proceedings, if the trial court deems it appropriate, mentally disordered sex offender, proceedings can be reinstated from the beginning.

People v. Stanley

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief