People v. Marling

California Court of Appeal Feb 26, 1981 No. Crim. No. 11584Published

Before: Work

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that while the defendant was eligible for California Youth Authority (CYA) commitment, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing him to prison, nor did it err in refusing to initiate mentally disordered sex offender (MDSO) proceedings.

Issues

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to commit the defendant to the California Youth Authority.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to initiate mentally disordered sex offender (MDSO) proceedings.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the court’s decision not to commit him to CYA was based on substantial evidence neither he nor society would materially benefit from such a commitment.”

“Although a rose is a rose, a cactus is not and a stipulation does not make it so. Nor will a unilateral willingness to stipulate a nonsex offense into one achieve such a metamorphosis.”

Opinion

WORK, J. Bobby Earl Marling, a 17-year-old first degree murderer sentenced to prison, unmeritoriously claims the sentencing court erred [286]in refusing to commit him to the California Youth Authority (CYA), or at least to refer him for a second diagnostic evaluation, and in failing to adjourn criminal proceedings to evaluate him as a mentally disordered sex offender (MDSO).

Facts of the Offense

Related most favorably to the prosecution the facts show Marling and companions selected a male adult to rob and kill. Marling seduced the victim by his promise to engage in homosexual activities. When in private, Marling stabbed his victim to death with a knife he procured for that very purpose, and then stole the victim’s possessions. No homosexual activity occurred nor was intended by Marling.

Sentencing

Marling is the first person convicted of first degree murder to be referred to CYA for a diagnostic study. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 707.2.) In due course a report concluding he was amenable to CYA programming was submitted.

Because contrary conclusions were contained in the probation report and reports from two psychiatrists, and the court’s familiarity with the case gained during Marling’s trial, the court expressed doubt as to the validity of the diagnostic conclusion.

Recognizing it was not bound to follow the CYA recommendation, (People v. Carl B. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 212, 218-219 [155 Cal.Rptr. 189, 594 P.2d 14]), but wishing to give Marling every opportunity to show why its conclusion should be followed, the court had all CYA personnel who participated in preparing the report appear at sentencing for an examination lasting two and one-half days.

The court alternatively ruled Marling ineligible for commitment to CYA because he had been convicted of first degree murder and, after reviewing all the evidence, determined a prison commitment was appropriate. It then found no evidence the crime was sexually motivated, denied Marling’s request to initiate MDSO proceedings, and committed him to prison.

[287]

People v. Marling

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief