People v. Alwien
JAD17-19
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jan 5, 2018Background
- Appellant (Drumond Alwien) was placed temporarily in a CDCR diagnostic facility under Penal Code §1203.03 and later received felony probation after return from that evaluation.
- While contesting several pending traffic infractions, appellant moved to dismiss under Vehicle Code §41500, arguing prosecution was barred because he had been “committed to the custody” of CDCR when sent for the diagnostic evaluation.
- The traffic court denied the §41500 motion; appellant pleaded guilty to the consolidated infractions and filed a timely appeal challenging the court’s authority to proceed.
- The appellate division considered whether the appeal was permissible despite the guilty plea, concluding the claim implicated the legality/jurisdiction of the proceedings and therefore was appealable.
- On the merits, the court had to decide whether a temporary placement for a §1203.03 diagnostic evaluation constitutes a “commitment to the custody” of CDCR within the meaning of Vehicle Code §41500.
- The court affirmed the judgment, holding that temporary diagnostic placement is not a sentence-based commitment and thus §41500’s prosecutorial bar does not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appeal is permitted after guilty plea | People: appealability limited; contest is moot; estoppel from plea | Alwien: claim challenges court’s jurisdiction/legality, so appealable | Appealable — claim goes to legality of proceedings despite plea |
| Whether temporary §1203.03 placement is a “commitment to the custody” under Veh. Code §41500 | People: temporary diagnostic placement is not a sentence-based commitment and thus not covered by §41500 | Alwien: §41500’s plain language doesn’t limit how commitment occurs; diagnostic placement qualifies | Held for People — temporary diagnostic placement is not a commitment under §41500 |
| Whether estoppel prevents appellant from challenging prosecution after plea | People: appellant got benefit of plea bargain and should be estopped | Alwien: he preserved the §41500 issue and did not concede prosecutorial authority before pleading | Held for Alwien on estoppel point — not estopped; appellant preserved the jurisdictional challenge |
| Whether statutory/legislative purpose supports appellant’s reading of §41500 | Alwien: statute should be interpreted broadly to give a fresh start to those returned from CDCR | People: legislative purpose targets sentenced prisoners/parolees released after incarceration, not pre-sentencing diagnostic placements | Held for People — legislative history and purpose support limiting §41500 to sentence-based commitments |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Egbert, 59 Cal.App.4th 503 (appeal after plea limited to legality/jurisdictional issues)
- In re Olsen, 176 Cal.App.3d 386 (no certificate required for post-plea infraction appeals; scope limited)
- People v. Turner, 171 Cal.App.3d 116 (guilty plea waives non-jurisdictional claims; only power to try remains)
- People v. Arbuckle, 22 Cal.3d 749 (role of §1203.03 diagnostic reports in sentencing)
- People v. Lopez, 218 Cal.App.4th Supp. 6 (legislative purpose of §41500 to provide fresh start to inmates/parolees)
- People v. Freeman, 225 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1 (interpretation and purpose of §41500)