Court Opinion

ID: 9727168
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:22:59.379793+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:34.363274
License: Public Domain

*567FLEMING, J.
Dissenting in part.
I agree with the reversal of the order discharging petitioner, but instead of dismissing the petition for habeas corpus I would direct the superior court to determine whether good cause existed for the imposition of the 10-year sentence on 10 May 1972. My disagreement with the majority stems from a somewhat different view of the authority exercisable by the Adult Authority in relation to the following sequence of events:
December 1969—Petitioner’s term of sentence determined at six and one-half years.
February 1970 — Petitioner indicted in Monterey County for murder of a correctional officer.
March 1970 —Petitioner’s term of sentence vacated.
March 1972 — Petitioner acquitted on the Monterey murder charge.
10 May 1972 —Petitioner’s term of sentence redetermined at 10 years.
The Adult Authority has the right to redetermine sentence and, if thought necessary, to increase the term of a prisoner whose term it has previously determined. (Pen. Code, § 3020.) But in doing this the authority does not write afresh in disregard of what has gone before, for its power to increase the term of sentence is limited by the requirement that good cause for the increase be shown. This requirement was first articulated by In re McLain, 55 Cal.2d 78, 87 [9 Cal.Rptr. 824, 357 P.2d 1080], where the court said: “As already pointed out, insofar as the order redetermined sentence there is no statutory requirement that it state the ‘cause’ for such redetermination. But, obviously, good cause must in fact exist for the making of such an order. Even though a legally convicted person has no vested right to the determination of his sentence at less than maximum, his liberty, or denial thereof, may not be made to turn upon mere whim, caprice, or rumor. [Citations.] Thus in redetermining sentence, although no ‘cause’ need be stated in the order, the conclusion is inescapable that such action cannot be taken in the absence of good cause. In the instant case such ‘cause’ is disclosed both in the order, and in the record upon which the Authority acted.” (Italics added.)
Under the law as it existed prior to Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471 [33 L.Ed.2d 484, 92 S.Ct. 2593] and In re Prewitt (1972) 8 Cal.3d 470 [105 Cal.Rptr. 318, 503 P.2d 1326], neither notice and hearing nor articulation and statement of cause were necessary for a redetermination which increased the term of the sentence. (In re McLain, supra, pp. 85, 87.) But the presence of good cause in fact was required to sup*568port such an order. If good cause is not evident from the redetermination order itself, the detaining authority can be required by habeas corpus to justify the detention.
At bench, the Monterey murder indictment could not of itself operate as good cause to increase the term of petitioner’s séntence, for the subsequent judgment of acquittal erased the blot of the indictment, even though the acquittal might have been based upon nothing more than failure to prove petitioner’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and even though the facts and circumstances which brought about the indictment might in themselves furnish good cause for an increase in the term of sentence. (People v. Robart, 29 Cal.App.3d 891 [106 Cal.Rptr. 51]; People v. Hayko, 7 Cal.App.3d 604 [86 Cal.Rptr. 726].) Petitioner’s acquittal, without more, should have resulted in reimposition of his original term of sentence, unless good cause for imposition of a longer sentence was established by events that occurred between the time of petitioner’s original sentence (December 1969) and its redetermination (10 May 1972).
The majority opinion appears to suggest that in this case a showing of good cause for an increased term of . sentence was unnecessary because the initial sentence visualized three years of parole time and petitioner’s redetermined sentence merely reaffirmed and reimposed a parole period of three years. In my view the parole-time argument possesses no validity, for I think it obvious that petitioner had already served two years of his “parole time” in the penitentiary while awaiting disposition of the murder charge on which he was ultimately acquitted.
The other argument relied upon by the majority adopts the premise that the original sentence, the vacation of sentence, and the subsequent redetermination of sentence are separate happenings that bear no relationship to one another. But we are dealing here with matters that directly involve the moral sense of the criminal law and its basic technique for differentiating right from wrong. To rule that acquittal, without more, can result in an increased term of sentence is to repay past insult with future injury. Both at law and in common understanding sentence and resentence involve a unitary process, a conclusion that clearly appears from those decisions which prevent the courts themselves from imposing an increased sentence without good cause after reversal of an earlier conviction. (People v. Henderson, 60 Cal.2d 482, 497 [35 Cal.Rptr. 77, 386 P.2d 677]; People v. Thornton, 14 Cal.App.3d 324, 326-327 [92 Cal.Rptr. 327]; North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 725-726 [23 L.Ed.2d 656, 669-670, 89 S.Ct. 2072].) The uncontrolled exercise of power denied the courts because of due process of law is equally impermissible to the Adult Authority.
*569However, the record does suggest the existence of good cause in fact for an increase in petitioner’s sentence by reason of events that occurred subsequent to the time of petitioner^ original sentence. On motion for rehearing the People offered to prove that during this period petitioner not only repeatedly violated prison discipline but also committed the following major offenses:
November 1970 — Assault with a chair leg on a correctional officer at San Quentin.
August 1971 —Assault with hot coffee on a correctional officer.
August 1971 —Involvement in attempted escape and murder.
December 1971 —Theft of handcuff keys from a correctional officer.
These incidents, if summarily established, would furnish ample cause for redetermination of petitioner’s sentence at the increased term.
I would direct the trial court on rehearing to allow the People to prove the existence of good cause for redetermination of petitioner’s sentence at the increased term.
A petition for a rehearing was denied June 19, 1974, and respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied July 31, 1974. Wright, C. J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.