From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Williams

Court of Appeal of California, Third District
Feb 9, 1939
30 Cal.App.2d 733 (Cal. Ct. App. 1939)

Opinion

Docket No. 1656.

February 9, 1939.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Mendocino County denying an application for restoration of sanity and for release from a state hospital for the insane. W.D.L. Held, Judge. Appeal dismissed on motion.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Gladys Towles Root for Petitioner.

Earl Warren, Attorney-General, and J.Q. Brown, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent.


THE COURT.

Appellant had been adjudged not guilty of the crime of rape, by reason of insanity at the time of the commission of the offense, and was, on March 20, 1937, committed to the Mendocino State Hospital for the Insane, pursuant to the provisions of section 1026 of the Penal Code.

More than one year thereafter he filed, in the Superior Court of the County of Mendocino, a petition for his release, alleging therein that he was then sane and entitled to his discharge from the hospital.

[1] After a hearing thereon, an order was made denying his release. An appeal was then taken to this court from that order. The attorney-general has appeared and moved to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that the order remanding petitioner to the hospital after a hearing upon an application for restoration of sanity (sec. 1026a, Pen. Code) is not an appealable order, and that the remedy is by a writ of habeas corpus. With this contention we are in accord. In People v. Lee, 97 Cal.App. 321 [ 275 P. 815], the court held that an order directing that defendant be confined in a state hospital is not an appealable order under section 1237 of the Penal Code, and that the remedy under sections 1026 and 1026a of the Penal Code is by a proceeding in habeas corpus. The power to discharge a patient otherwise than upon habeas corpus is vested exclusively in the officers of the hospital. ( Kellogg v. Cochran, 87 Cal. 192 [25 P. 677, 12 L.R.A. 104].)

On the authority of those cases the motion to dismiss the appeal is granted. It is so ordered.


Summaries of

In re Williams

Court of Appeal of California, Third District
Feb 9, 1939
30 Cal.App.2d 733 (Cal. Ct. App. 1939)
Case details for

In re Williams

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Application for Release from the Mendocino State…

Court:Court of Appeal of California, Third District

Date published: Feb 9, 1939

Citations

30 Cal.App.2d 733 (Cal. Ct. App. 1939)
87 P.2d 379

Citing Cases

People v. Coleman

Prior to the 1968 amendment to section 1237, it had long been held that an order of commitment pursuant to…

In re Perkins

It was the duty of the court to make such an order. [13] It has been held that an appeal will not lie from an…