Court Opinion

ID: 9847160
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:54:56.979914+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:02.248467
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
Under the compulsion of In re Foss (1974) 10 Cal.3d 910 [112 Cal.Rptr. 649, 519 P.2d 1073], I agree with the Chief Justice's opinion insofar as it concludes that the provisions of former section 11531 (now § 11360) of the Health and Safety Code precluding parole consideration for a repeat offender for a minimum of 10 years, constitute both cruel and unusual punishment in violation of proscriptions of the California Constitution. I also agree that, following Foss, such parole eligibility provisions are severable from the remainder *19of the section, that petitioner’s 10-year-to-life sentence remains valid, and that his eligibility for parole under such term may be determined by the Adult Authority in accordance with the laws of this state.
However with all due respect, I cannot join in the canvassing of all the parole eligibility provisions contained in the Health and Safety Code applicable to recidivist narcotics offenders and in the sweeping conclusion that all such provisions precluding parole consideration for a minimum of five years or more also constitute both cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the proscriptions of the California Constitution. The constitutionality of none of these provisions has been raised or is in issue before us and to pass upon them is clearly unnecessary to the decision of the case at bench. As we have observed in the past “[i]t has heretofore been considered against the policy of this court (and of courts of last resort generally) to reach out and unnecessarily pronounce upon the constitutionality of any duly enacted statute.” (Palermo v. Stockton Theatres, Inc. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 53, 65 [195 P.2d 1].)
McComb, J., and Richardson, J., concurred.
CLARK, J.
For the reasons stated in my concurring and dissenting opinion in In re Foss (1974) 10 Cal.3d 910, 933-938 [112 Cal.Rptr. 649, 519 P.2d 1073], I concur in denying the writ, but dissent from holding that former section 11531 (now § 11360) of the Health and Safety Code authorizes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the California Constitution. For the reasons stated by Justice Sullivan (ante), I express no opinion concerning the constitutionality of the other provisions of the Health and Safety Code precluding parole consideration for a minimum of five years or more for recidivist narcotics offenders.