*1 838 Mendheim,
bert v. 633], dep- P. Cal. dealt with a uty who, considered, by his reappointed implication stayed principal when he term of his principal. second in- analogous None these cases are to the situation here volved. foregoing
For the reasons the is reversed. Schauer, Gibson, Shenk, J., J., J., J., Edmonds, Traynor, C. J., Spence, J., concurred. No. In Nov. 4797. Bank.
[Crim. 1947.] PHYLE, Corpus. Habeas re WILLIAM on JEROME *2 Matthews, Myers for Morris Lavine and Wallace S. Al Petitioner. Linn, Attorney General, and A. Howser,
Fred N. Clarence Attorney General, Respondent. for Deputy Phyle guilty Jerome was found TRAYNOR, J.William degree executed. murder and sentenced first {People Phyle, 28 Cal. affirmed this court was set 428]), P.2d and the date 2d 671 execution awaiting exe- December 1946. While defendant was Quentin, prison at the warden of San cution *3 pursuant section 3701 of the prison proceedings initiated question sanity. determine the defendant’s Penal Code to adjudged insane and com- jury a trial After defendant January 18, Hospital. mitted to Mendocino State On the hospital certified the superintendent of that 1947, the had his reason. The defendant recovered Gov- Governor that prison the then a warrant to the warden of state ernor issued May day Quentin appointing of execution. at San attorneys petition a for a defendant’s filed writ One of court, contending superinten- that the in this Hospital under dent of Mendocino State the defendant to the warden law of state to release this Quentin adjudication at without an prison of the state San defendant has reason. competent court that recovered his purpose giving for consid- the writ This court issued eration to this contention. “A provides Penal Code 1367 of the
Section punishment, tried, adjudged punished or for a be cannot public question The of defen- is insane.” offense while he of the of the offense or sanity at the time commission dant’s or is not in the time of his conviction sentence involved only presented proceeding. whether adjudged has been who insane after conviction, sen tence, delivery and to a warden prison of a state for execu tion, has the to a determination of the of his restoration to procedure determining for of the specified under sentence of death in
sections 3700 to pro 3704 of Penal Code. Section 3700 that, judge, court, officer, vides “No other than the Gov ernor, suspend can judgment death, execution of a except prison the warden of the State whom he is delivered execution, provided for in succeeding sections, the six un appeal less an is taken.” Four of the six sections referred to relate to the prisoner’s sanity. of the The other two, which prescribe procedure determining ques for pregnancy tion death, woman sentenced to are not material this case. ques- for the determination of provides
Section 3701 sanity after he has been tion of defendant’s delivered to the delivery prison: “If after warden for execu- tion, good reason to believe that a defendant, there is under death, insane, has become warden must call attorney such fact county attention district situated, duty which the whose it tois immedi- ately superior court county file in the of such a petition, stating judgment, the conviction and and the fact that insane, defendant asking ques- is believed be and inquired tion into.” Section 3702 provides procedure hearing pursuant for the held to section 3701. provides Section 3703 jury “The verdict of the must be upon minutes, entered thereupon the court must make cause to be entered reciting an order the fact of such inquiry thereof, and the result when is found that the insane, defendant the order must direct that he be taken to a State for the insane and there kept a state until his of confinement reason is restored.” disposition provides Section 3704 *4 “. after the order entered: . . it that court’s is is found insane, suspend the defendant is the warden must the execu- copy a certified order tion transmit .the mentioned Governor, defendant, the last the section to deliver together copy order, a of such with certified to the medical superintendent hospital named in such order. When reason, recovers his must defendant certify that the Governor, to who must thereupon issue fact
842
to the warden his warrant appointing day a for the execu- judgment, tion of the thereupon and the warden shall return the defendant prison pending State the execution of judgment.” (Italics added.) reading apparent a 3700 to 3704 of
It is sections judicial no provision Penal that there is for a de- Code sanity a defendant de- termination except to warden of a state for livered execution fact, 3701. In expressly set forth in section section 3700 as provides appeal that after the defendant has had his to court, exclusively the execution of his sentence lies within Governor, and prison. the warden control however, of restora- contends, Petitioner that defendant sanity judicial determination after tion that the statute necessarily judicial question and is insane that, has been “when provided if it interpreted must his reason has recovered judicially determined defendant certify that fact to the Governor. must view of the cases constru- maintains .” Petitioner . . sanity regarding the restoration to statutory provisions ing during the of his trial adjudged insane course defendant right judicial to a 1367-1372) defendant has Code, (Pen. §§ of his restoration determination in a the rule that a confined Petitioner relies on right pursuant provisions to those has a habeas corpus to has been restored. his whether Jones, In; re Bu- (Gardner 614, v. 126 Cal. 618 P. [59 126] chanan, 1120, ; see 129 Cal. P. L.R.A. 378] People Superior Court, 724].) P.2d 4 Cal.2d 145 [47 an insti- to such committed a defendant true that It therefrom, if it is determined release right to his has a tution ishe improperly held because he is corpus that on sane, he is returned that he If it is found sane. presently re (In proceeds. trial and his the sheriff present peti- 336.) case, In the Buchanan, supra, p. hos- from the state release not seek does tioner sane, he is for if he were found ground that on the pital, for execution. be delivered the warden he would of defendant to the state seeks return Instead, petitioner discharged ground improperly hospital, on authority, however, proposi- There therefrom. corpus has a to habeas other tion that defendant determine the proceeding hospital. fact, from the state release after
'843 proceeding. expressly prohibits of the Penal Code such a superintendent sane, that defendant Once the certifies custody to for execution and remanded warden judge, or “No court other officer other than Governor” suspend “except can then judgment, the execution of warden of the State Prison to whom he is ...” delivered. any provision superintendent
Nor is there for the to judicial proceedings initiate to which he to ascertain the fact authorized, certifies. The is not as the warden attorney is, to call the to the attention a district judicial duty Instead, for a determination. it is his to cer tify thereupon the fact to “who must issue his the Governor day appointing warrant a execution. . . .” for the Since determining sanity person method of of a awaiting Legislature execution is controlled and since Legislature provided in Code, 3700, has Penal section the courts suspend judgment cannot the execution provided death and in proceed section 3701 for a ing to determine sanity only of defendant’s when the warden invokes such proceeding, it is clear that question of sanity restoration to under ques section 3704 is a tion superintendent. determination of the interpretation
This of section 3704 is in accord with the interpretation this court the almost identical lan guage of section 1372, which to relates sanity restoration person to judicially who has been ad judged 1372, insane before conviction. Section which was present amended to its form at the same time as the provisions with respect to restoration to adjudged insane after (Stats. conviction and sentence pp. 699, 704),* provides: “If the defendant is received into the state hospital he must be detained there until he becomes sane. When he becomes sane the certify must attorney sheriff and county. district The fact *In provisions 1905 the of 3704 were contained section repealed in 1941 reenacted as section 3704 with the addition phrase of the last that “the warden thereupon shall return defen- to pending dant the state judgment.” the execution of the Sec- tion adopted that, 10000 provides provisions at the same time “The 3 Part of this code includes 3704], sections far so [which they substantially as existing are provisions the same as relating to subject matter, the same shall be construed as and con- restatements tinuations thereof as and not new enactments.” addition of this case or phrase clearly last to section 3704 is not material interpretation respect of that section with the duties of the superintendent. thereupon
sheriff place must . . in proper . brought until may be, he is trial or the case legally discharged.” (Italics added.) People Superior Court, 4 construing 724], court held that the 136, 144-147 P.2d Cal.2d. super for the question of defendant’s restoration that once a stated intendent to determine. *6 1372, a state under section has committed to been “ discharge him ‘no in this state is authorized to there capacity person, from, or to restore to corpus. any circumstances, except upon a writ of habeas under upon than discharge him otherwise ’ asylum . exclusively . . in the officers is vested undoubtedly prescribes the manner exclusive Penal Code in motion be set when proceedings shall by which the (People v. sanity or is insane.” is restored defendant 145.) After the Court, supra, at Superior custody pursuant placed in defendant that a determines sane, the de the Penal Code 1370 1372 of to sections begun. had in which his trial to the court is returned fendant finding him insane to for the verdict necessary is not It Rice, may proceed. (People v. trial court before the vacated 450].) Cal.App. 55, 60 P. 83 1372 of both section in provisions When substantially 1905, similar in adopted were 3704 section (Stats. 1851, p. 278, Act Practice of the Criminal provision sanity person aof ad- restoration relating to 591) § already interpreted been had judgment before insane judged provided of that act for the 589 Section court. by this before to be.insane person found delivery aof by redelivery person” and “proper aof becoming upon his sane. Section sheriff person such “If be received that, the defendant provided 591 by him must be detained until he appointed he so person sane, give When becomes shall sane. becomes Attorney County and District notice to the Sheriff Farrell, added.) People 576, v. 31 (Italics Cal. fact.” 580, provision require judicial it was held that this did not determination of the of restoration to insanity that the verdict under which was the defendant committed did not have be vacated before the defendant could be tried. error Accordingly, was not for the trial without trial of the proceed with the court to present inquiry into the instituting form of “some 60, Cal.App. 55, (People Rice, 83 v. of the accused.” 144-147, Superior Court, supra; People Cal.2d supra.) obviously pari materia, the in-
Since these statutes are interpretation terpretation of a sentence one controls virtually other. It must be assumed the same sentence present provisions Legislature adopted the also that when the the construction that had of section it was aware of given been section of the Criminal Practice Act. contends, however, that section 3704 is
Petitioner 6760 of the Welfare and modified Institutions patient “A Code, provides: committed to a State hos Chapter VI, X II pital provisions Title Part under Code, shall, upon superin certificate of Penal recovered, approved by tendent county superior judge patient from which the committed, county, be redelivered to the sheriff of such provisions in accordance with the dealt with of the above . ” chapter of the Penal Even if it mentioned Code be assumed *7 requires judicial this section a determination of the question sanity of the restoration to of one pur committed chapter (cf. to the of the code People suant referred to v. Superior Court, supra, 143-146), clearly application has no present case, petitioner was committed under for provisions chapter Code, of Penal the of that the but under chapter 2, 3, part 3 provisions the of title of code with provision comparable respect to which there is no to section requiring Institutions approval 6760 of the Welfare and Code superintendent’s by superior judge of the certificate the of county patient from which the was the committed.
Petitioner also that contends there is an inherent judicial power question to determine the of restoration to sanity, regardless of the statutes. He cites proposi for this People Scott, tion the of case v. 327, 326 Ill. 338 N.E. [157 held, wherein it was statutory the absence of a pro 247] regarding vision sanity, jury restoration to that a trial of the question sanity of proper. was Where there is a statute declares that of the state where prisoner is confined declare prisoner’s sanity restored, person a awaiting right execution has no a
846
judicial
(Bar
determination of Ms restoration
Commonwealth,
Ky. 153,
By
rett v.
202
160
S.W.
[259
25]
adopting
prohibiting
section 3700
of
Penal
Code
courts from suspending
the execution
of death
of
except
appeal,
on
Legislature
provided
has
in effect that
courts
power, except
provided
of this state are without
by statute,
sanity
person
determine
has
who
been
sentenced to be
capital
executed for a
is in the
offense and
custody of
purpose
the warden of a state
for the
(See
People
Sloper,
execution.
v.
erned principles. common law Criminal Since the first (Stats. Practice Act in this 1850, p. 312, 505; § § Act 1851, p. 264; Criminal Practice Stats. 1224 of Code 1872), Pen. § prisoners governed or restoration to of such has been by judge statute. either Until the Governor or a trial prisoner court could whether or not a was after order execution he had been found insane inquisition. provision changed an This whereby 1224 of an amendment the Penal Code all reference to the court was omitted Governor was directed to issue a warrant execution receipt on certificate
hospital. provision. 3704 is a of this Section continuation Code, 10000.) (Pen. The courts of this state therefore have § right, statute, independent never had the sanity question of the restoration to of defendant who is in a custody prison pur a warden of a state for execution judgment to a lawful death. suant statutory question procedure remains whether sanity is con determining question for of restoration right has a that defendant stitutional. Petitioner contends question sanity, protected adjudication to an of his process due of the Constitution of the United clauses no There is States and the Constitution California. right Supreme States under either The United Constitution. determining ques procedure Court has held that the properly tion of who has con been a mat capital victed of a offense and sentenced to death is Legislature jurisdiction ter for the and courts of the presents which is convicted and no federal question. (Nobles Georgia, 398, 404 87, v. 168 U.S. S.Ct. [18 515].) ground L.Ed. the court affirmed a decision On Supreme Georgia (Baughn State, Court of v. 100 Ga. 68, 70, 577]) 38 L.R.A. S.E. that under the laws [28 Georgia person capital offense and sentenced convicted right to death who becomes insane has no to a thereafter judicial sanity. (See, determination of of his also, 804.) why cases in 49 We collected A.L.R. see reason process the due clause of the California Constitution should interpreted differently. provide the The statutes of this state therefore measure of rights any defendant’s determination of the of his Defendant has thus far been afforded the protection judicial full He those statutes. was entitled to a determination of the of his after conviction only prison and sentence because the warden of the state Quentin San believed that was insane. The he effect adjudication prevent that he was insane was to his execution until of the state only that he had recovered his reason. was sent certified His to another determination of that depends on belief and action of the warden to whose he has (See People been returned. v. Far rell, 576, 581; People 31 Cal. Rice, v. 83 Cal.App. 61 [256 450].) P. already
This decided that given adequate protection the warden constitutes to one who has properly been capital convicted of In People offense. Sloper, 198 Cal. 607-608 P. 802], the defendant was convicted of murder degree first and sentenced to *9 appeal
death. court, On judgment this was affirmed. Defendant sought then prevent fixing of a date for execution and question to obtain a trial on the of his Upon the denial motion, of this applied to this stay court for In denying application, execution. court, on the of Penal Code (now 3700), held that no court this state § has the suspend the execution judgment of a of death to deter mine the of a who became insane after his conviction and sentence. The court stated “adequate statutory provision complete is made for the protection rights of the defendant who have become insane after his conviction and sentence. . . . If it be found that defendant [pursuant insane statutes], these court must direct that he be taken to one of the state hos pitals insane, kept and there in safe confinement until his reason is restored. When the defendant recovers his reason the of the certify must fact Governor, thereupon who must issue to the warden appointing day his warrant for the execution of the judgment. . . . conclude, We must therefore, it was legislature jurisdiction the intention of limit court, proceedings trial making of this nature to necessary carry the orders judgment into effect. opinion also, that, We are of comprehensive in view of the adequate provision for the made determination of the alleged of a defendant who is to have become death, insane after the rendition of a no Sloper substantial of the defendant was affected by denying the action of the court below in his motion. . . . If it be a insane, fact this case that the condemned man is it must be assumed that the warden of will the state duty do his full prisoner’s to the end that the ”. sanity may judicially determined Sloper case, prior there was adjudication insanity, opinion but the expression contains a ap clear proval procedure thus far present followed in the case. contends,
Petitioner however, that because a court of law determined that insane, the defendant only was a court of law can determine that he is now sane. This contention clearly inconsistent with section 3700 of the Penal Code and with the interpreting cases provision of section 1372 3704. provision of that similar to the of section Sections code adjudication, for the provide Penal 3700-3704 Code only of the continuing status, not but of some hearing the time of the whether the defendant adjudication Moreover, the relied initiated the warden. petitioner on did the con- purport to decide what There dition of defendant’s be thereafter. mind would insanity incur- was no determination defendant’s able, if it such a would even is assumed that determination *10 The jurisdiction. within the court’s have been time, was found at that and his execution was sus- insane pended only until It was order he recovered his reason. kept of the court that the defendant be in confinement in the and said until recovered reason “when Phyle reason, Superin- William Jerome recovers his Hospital certify in which tendent of State he is confined that fact to the of of Governor the State California for further proceedings required by as is law.” There therefore adjudication merit to the contention that the that defendant gave was insane at time of this trial a vested to the status of an insane or thereafter until a court of law determined that he is sane. petitioner contends also separation of
powers provision of section 1
III of
of article
the California
by leaving
Constitution is violated
the final determination of
prisoner’s sanity
to administrative officers. The contention
the power
determine
restoration to
given
such
cannot be
already
been
adversely
answered
People
in this state in
Superior
Court,
Even the warden’s cial, III of the there is of article no violation of section X Constitution, specifically California for section 7 of article anything provides “Notwithstanding elsewhere contained for the es Constitution, Legislature provide in this tablishment, superintendence all government, charge and For this persons institutions for all convicted felonies. government, charge purpose, Legislature may delegate any superintendence public gov of such institutions to boards, officers, or agency agencies, ernmental or or board Any such existing whether now or created it. hereafter perform agencies, powers, officers, or hoards shall have such respect to other such duties and exercise such functions Legislature may reformatory pre penal matters, (Italics added.) scribe.” delegation sections contained the former 1221-1224) subject (§§ Penal Code on this
validated the Constitution in the fol- the same section of . . . . lowing existing purporting . . terms: “All statutes delegate government, charge superintendence, so such . . . prescribe or functions are powers, to so duties hereby legally effective ratified, validated and declared By moving Legislature provides until the these otherwise.” *11 another, the provisions part of the Penal Code to one (Pen. Code, 10000.) Legislature change effect. did not their § superin Even if it is assumed was deliv hospital, tendent of to whom defendant the state has his reason ered, to determine whether defendant recovered the Cali judicial foregoing provisions of power, is a delegation power. this fornia Constitution authorize the to is delivered Under statutes felony, and superintendent a convicted of a person authority superintendent’s over such thereafter, so far as the only not is exercises a concerned superintendence entrusted with the of an officer but the duties func for convicted felons of an institution prescribed Code, in Penal section 3704. tions in that unless the It follows warden ,is that defendant incarcerated believes jurisdiction to deter- insane, court of this now state suggested sanity. It has been question of his mine ground if the wrong mat- must be on this conclusion process warden, a circular ter is left to the discretion of the whereby again insane, may begin be found defendant will again hospital, again a declared restored sent to sanity. only judicial suggested that It has therefore been prevent determination of this at time will such circuity. assumptions that suggestion This is based on the insane, jury that a the warden believes that defendant is would insane, find to be and that error—assumptions
Mendocino Hospital State was Moreover, properly this court cannot it does not fol- make. judicial prevent that a low determination of this will circuity. right If this court were hold that defendant has a judicial determination restoration specified Code, under Penal procedure some sections be either determination would that defendant is sane or insane. If the he verdict is that insane, the defendant would an have to be delivered to institution and detained there until proceeding in a he sane. sane, was found If the verdict is that he de- fendant would be delivered to the warden for execution, the date for execution again. During would have to be set adjudication the interval between this and the date for exe- cution, may again the defendant become insane. Unless warden is to execute an insane in violation of Penal Code, it would be the duty, warden’s if had good reason to believe that defendant insane, set again motion procedure for determining the defendant’s duty of preventing per- execution of an insane given by son is statute to warden and to the Governor, and even it were held that defendant judi- has a to a cial determination sanity, of his the determi- nation that finally he is the time set for his execution must be made the warden. discharged, writ is and William Phyle Jerome re- custody.
manded to
Gibson, J., J., Shenk, C. Edmonds, J., and Spence, J., con- curred.
SCHAUER, J. I dissent. *12 agree I cannot privilege that the of the writ of habeas cor- pus person solely be denied to a because he has been crime, of death, convicted adjudged sentenced insane, agree powers I nor that the hospital; committed a state can super- in vested in the warden a state the medical of hospital the and ab- intendent of a state insane transcend rogate powers proceedings courts to on the the entertain corpus. indisputable, think, powers It is I substantially ab- corpus proceedings the courts on habeas are majority rogated type holding of the in eases of this opinion that factual determination an administrative proceed- in agent absolutely on courts conclusive ings. majority stated in issue here is not what is real really simple grave. It and much more
opinion. more On alleged part it is in material “That prisoner behalf December, 1946, jury after trial day the 24th on Phyle prisoner] Superior . . Court . William Jerome [the Superior insane, Court committed adjudged and said was Phyle Hospital Talmadge, be State held . . . said kept person, in a and there state con- there as an insane be until his reason restored. finement [Italics added.] Phyle Jerome remained thereafter, William said “That California, Talmadge, until Hospital at State the Mendocino Superintendent time the 18, 1947, at which January presented to the Hospital Governor cer- State Mendocino Phyle had William Jerome recovered his that the said tificate Phyle was, is, and still said insane. reason, whereas [Italics added.] the State California thereafter, the Governor “That prison] the the state Governor’s Warden issued to [of day May, 1947 for the 2nd execu- appointing warrant, Phyle. . . gas of William Jerome . lethal by means of tion Duffy T. restrains Clinton this Court “That unless [the carrying warrant of prison] out the state warden Phyle will on Fri- Governor, . . . be executed that said May, 1947.” day of day, 2nd writ, had According the return to been upon legal death; proper proceed thereafter sentenced chapter part Code, article 3 of the Penal ings under superior on December he insane and jury was found hospital he be “until 24,1946, ordered that confined restored”; of such reason January 18, 1947, governor on certified sane; governor made his warrant of execution; and the *13 prisoner pursuant sentence and warden holds the to such warrant . controlling by petition return facts shown and are duly prisoner adjudged
that the and committed insane by judgment superior of the court to be confined a state hospital restored”; “until his reason be that his reason has “was, is, (that insane”) in fact and still been restored that, notwithstanding continuing and his but insanity hospital the state he has been released from and the custody superintendent of its and transferred to the state prison custody and of the warden and will be executed while important It is insane unless this court intervenes. most allegation prisoner “was, that the vital note still is, insane,” challenged in the is not return and must be majority opinion necessarily deemed admitted. The holds allegation fact, it, wholly that this or at least the imma- superintendent terial because of the pre- .the sumptively prisoner determined and has certified that reason; has recovered his such determination and certification, majority hold, prisoner are conclusive on the and on this court; corpus hence habeas will be denied. Obviously, the majority upon any determination of the inquiry does not rest by or determination sanity court as to the fact of or in- prisoner; squarely it rests on holding agent the administrative has sole and uncontrolled certify to determine and the fact insanity or fact, such certified, when so disputed by cannot be prisoner inquired or by into This, the court. clearly, is ab- rogation of rights powers in such a case.
Contrary to implications majority opinion (the reads, order “The writ is discharged, and Phyle William remanded custody” added]), petition [italics does not seek release of the prisoner; appears on its face and as is hereinafter shown in detail, it only seeks to have trans ferred custody from an unlawful to a lawful custodian; he., from custody of the warden custody of hospital. As is also particularly more shown hereinafter, upon the unchallenged facts alleged, of the hospital is the sole lawful prisoner. custodian of the for habeas petition may granted on sought be relief “In provides that Code 1493 of the Penal
corpus. Section illegal restraint or cus any party is held under cases where custody or to the restraint tody, any or is entitled other party may such to be party, judge order such or custody of such as is committed to the restraint or (Italics added.) law entitled thereto.” Section provides appears the same code “If on the return virtue of prisoner of the writ is in any state, judge or process court of discharged thereof, officer [or *14 by custody provided as proper remanded to custody having person . . . 5. When the 1486] him.” by to detain law prisoner is not the allowed in alleges facts which previously forth, petition As set sought relief the facts dubitably prisoner to the entitle the prisoner convicted has been be true. Such facts are death; that after such conviction and sentenced to of crime to the state hos duly adjudged insane and committed he was restored”; his reason be confined until pital “to be there notwithstanding the actual is, insane”; “was, and still superintendent hospital insanity of his continuance of transferred from he has been is sane and certified that he custody of hospital superintendent of by prison will be executed and that he warden action. this court restrains unless warden appears that the basic related has been above From what of the medical su- determination is, is the asserted issue here now sane conclusive on the prisoner is perintendent corpus proceeding in a habeas prisoner court and on the In is fact insane? prisoner alleged that the wherein it is sanity by the state words, certification other does alleging prov- and prisoner from preclude the contrary determining that, to the cer- ing and the court from ? If the answer to tification, prisoner in truth insane is right majority hold, then the yes, questions is as the these persons in the abrogated as to effectively corpus is before us. status of super- opinion that the medical majority holding powers transcendent has exclusive intendent squarely contrary to earlier prisoners questions 126 (1899), v. Jones Cal. holdings of this court. Gardner
855 legal prin- 126], 614 find a case material P. we ciples us. M. is identical to that now Dr. A. Gardner before Hospital. (1899) superintendent Napa then State applied prohibit He to this court “for a writ to [judge superior county, Contra Costa Napa superior County] entertaining juris- court of whereby Napa diction in a certain habeas case” County ques- Superior assuming Court was to determine the Buchanan, who had tion the restoration to of one hospital as This court been committed to the insane. (pages Cal.), said an im- 615-616 “The portant one, as it involves the of an inmate inasmuch resting hospital, of a state who the time to happens charge pending under a criminal committed trial crime, alleged insanity subject to have made corpus. inquiry the writ of habeas It claimed [exactly ‘the only medical is the here] or tribunal vested law with to determine patient whether or not an insane this class has recovered.’ . . . provisions regulating “The of the Penal Code commit persons charged ment of with crime are found in sections to 1373. No regularity arises as to the of Bucha provisions. nan’s commitment under pro these Section vides as ‘If the asylum, follows: defendant is received into the *15 must be detained there until he becomes sane. When he sane, superintendent give becomes the must notice that fact attorney to the sheriff and county. district of the The sheriff thereupon, delay, must bring without defendant asylum place him in proper custody brought until he is judgment, to trial or may as the case be, legally or is dis ’ charged. “Section 1473 of the provides Penal Code as follows: ‘Every person unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of his lib any erty, pretense under may whatever, prosecute writ corpus inquire habeas to into the cause of imprisonment such ’ or restraint. 5, “Section I, article of the constitution reads: ‘The privilege of the writ shall not suspended be when, unless cases of rebellion or invasion, public safety may require its suspension.’ authority making no two classes find statute
“We by any such of insane—one civil and the other criminal—and operation to the latter out of classification take corpus. right of habeas Section article statute as III, insanity law no distinction. But of the makes such III in plaintiff that section 14 of article terms con- contends authority upon superintendent fers to the medical sanity, patient the criminal class is restored to when the and, any upon other as the not conferred necessarily exclusive, proves tribunal, it is and also or classes insane. recognizes the two mentioned that the law legislature intended to enact We believe that cannot entirely harmony spirit and letter of law with the so out of to which attention has been and the statute constitution duty 13 and article It is our to harmonize sections called. law, so to conform to constitution III, insanity as can, than resort to quoted, if we rather the statutes necessity holding un- to be the more extreme be, given it claims constitutional, as think it was by plaintiff. it We placed upon construction provide by patient 14 to means by section intended restored, could class, whose reason become of Buchanan’s county for proper to the sheriff remanded be once arbitrary power intended trial; it was not but deprive with medical rest should returned, nor was intended so patient judge should be the exclusive medical . . . patient’s restoration. [Italics added.] “ recovery, in our Buchanan’s 618.] [P. upon habeas may be examined jurisdictional and opinion, is corpus. . . . “ cases provides: ‘In Section [P. 619.] [Pen. Code] custody, illegal or or party restraint any is held under where custody or any to the restraint person is entitled other party to be or court order such party, judge of such committed to the restraint or petition Buchanan does thereto.’ law entitled freedom; he asks to be redelivered ask be restored why county. . . . of Yuba We see reason to the sheriff judge have order should not an the court *16 to the as that Buchanan be redelivered sheriff to direct prayed . . .” for. application reasoning quoted
In accord with the above the prohibition for of the medical the writ corpus proceeding was denied and thereafter the habeas superior proceeded the issue as to to determine the defendant's restoration It determined that the defendant-petitioner him was still insane and remanded custody Thereupon application Dr. for Gardner. corpus Beatty, this court. habeas made to Chief Justice authoring opinion court, again referred Dr. jurisdiction, Gardner’s claim of exclusive as asserted in his application prohibition, (In re Buchanan declared (1900), 378]), 332-333 Cal. P. A.L.R. supra, (1899), “It was there Gardner v. Jones 126 Cal. [in insanity (Stats. 1897, contended that the law p. of 1897 614] 311) asylum has made the sole and judge, kind, in a case of this final whether the sane, longer become and that the courts no have the inquiry by corpus, to conduct or otherwise. It against was held this contention that the of unlawful liberty restraint is, long a citizen and must be as present our endures, constitution to be courts, determined and that statute referred would be unconstitutional the construction required con if consequence tended . In . . of this [Italics added.] for. superior judge decision proceeded with hearing upon return to him, the writ of habeas issued having upon concluded the evidence that Buchanan was still insane, remanding made an order of Dr. Gardner. Thereupon present proceeding was commenced in this court, upon superior same evidence submitted to the judge, testimony, and some additional we must now decide whether Buchanan has become sane. of fact [Italics added.] question, however, “The is not whether he has become every word, sense of the but whether he has become sane
in the statute, requires sense suspension proceedings in a criminal cause whenever it is found presently insane. words, other there is a difference between the medical view of insanity and the upon view which the statute is founded, of sanity or insanity is to be determined with reference to *17 contra-distinguished
the latter from the former view. there That is such a is light difference . . .’’In the notorious. of that difference the writ was sustained and Buchanan custody ordered “returned to the of the sheriff of Tuba county.” (Here way we have no knowing what standard insanity present superintendent or the of the state applied certifying prisoner in sane.) is majority apparent in the opinion
Several vices become from quoted supra, what has been (1899), Gardner Jones (1900), supra, 126 Cal. and from In re Buchanan Cal. 330. In place, majority the first opinion unconstitu- tionally protection corpus, denies the of habeas at least as exemplified (if by a court trial of issue of fact there be one deny pleadings in view of the under the failure that prisoner presently insane) petitioner. is this state Our I, (art. 5) privilege Constitution declares that “The § suspended when, corpus writ of habeas shall not be unless invasion, safety may public in of rebellion or cases (2) I require suspension.” its Section 9 of article of the United provision. makes the same There States Constitution any suggestion that is extant status case no there whereby justify suspension of or invasion rebellion majority opinion, in safety. But all public in the writ suspends abrogates altogether— it practical effect, it—even have been convicted persons who insofar as concerns adjudged insane. death, and thereafter crime, sentenced continues, specifically as is prisoner’s insanity If fact judgment of the denied, alleged and not the law require in the hos- superior court that he be continued hereinabove, .As until is restored. shown pital If remedy. we refuse corpus proper is a habeas superin- medical solely ground on the sought, relief fact is conclusive of restoration certificate tendent’s power in the necessarily abrogating our sanity, are we And, insanity. the fact of premises—our prisoner to right abrogating the furthermore, arewe upon facts corpus, one challenge, on habeas even depends. execution impending legality corpus. right of habeas abrogation certainly an That in the status holding for is cited No rights deprived may be of this corpus. important
It is also to note that 1367 of Penal provides Code “A person tried, adjudged cannot punishment, punished public offense, or for a while he . ” insane If anything this section means at all it mean should that it right establishes a person, which a convicted insane, speaks him, may or one who enforce the courts. If the it, courts cannot poor right. enforce it is a If the of habeas is to be denied to such a d shoul be clear provision, constitutional legislation.
It should be observed may eventually also that the State find majority holding If here unfortunate. *18 in question, statutes majority, absolute, as held vest conclusive, power and superintendent exclusive in the hospital “for the determination of the , ” sanity who has been sentenced to and death if it be true, as is also majority, held that “a court has no inherent question,” that then, course, the determination of equally regardless final prisoner whether he determine that the is sane or insane. In some future case such superintendent may prisoner rule that a although remains insane other state officershave reason to believe prisoner that such has recovered his majority Under the holding, the fact of recovered sanity wholly would be immaterial; allegation an to that effect, although denied, totally not would be disregarded. prisoner Neither the himself nor the prosecuting officers of the state would be heard to contend that in prisoner truth the had recovered Only his reason. super certificate of the intendent, any sanity based on (medical standard of or legal) might which he use, elect to could determine fact; that any discretion in wholly event would be uncontrolled and give if he refused to the certificate the courts of this state powerless would be to intervene. majority opinion space devotes much ato discussion powers
of the duties hospital superintendent and prison to those of suggests warden warden, disposed, again so can proceedings initiate jury for another trial on prisoner’s present the issue of status. But speculation scarcely germane to the issue before us. The duties of the warden are thing; one our duties on alleges “unless petition quite are another. The Duffy prison T. Clinton warden] restrains Court [the Governor, . . . carrying said out warrant of the May, day Friday, the 2nd
[prisoner] will be executed on originally prayed issued 1947.” The fact that writ post- has been consequence date execution and that in finally decided, does not .mean poned until this cause allegation, prisoner is jeopardy lessened. The quoted, coupled above still unmis- with other averments insane, prisoner, presently takably although means that the has issued warrant which will under the been be executed allegation true, Whether that be rule unless we otherwise. inquire hold, will not because we have no majority we I any prevent the sub- power in event to execution. cannot scribe to such doctrine. any espouse such not mean that
Failure to doctrine does meaningless. provisions made statute 3704 that “When the defendant re- of Penal Code section hospital superintendent of such his reason the covers [state] certify and that the de- must that fact the Governor” executed, may like be returned fendant then provisions hereinabove cited and dis- of section case, may be quotation from the cussed in the Gardner proper cases. given applied in all Under effect and well that a (§3704) language of that section implied a state has that a prima facie determination make a re: certify and to recovered) (or covered *19 for execution. But back to the warden prisoner be denied habeas not must does mean determination the court corpus, an examination and fact, alleged, it be upon corpus, sane) although superin- prisoner (or insane fact may determined certified he is have tendent (or insane). history corpus, great of habeas care with which remedy persons all invoke that have been rights
guarded by provisions national and state our constitutions which jealous with the courts have here- and the solicitude rights, all combine to the hold- protected tofore those forbid prosecuting ing espouse officers this State now majority make. and which given State, requests relief, oppor- if it should be tunity challenge the now admitted averment is” then be tried out insane; “still that issue should depend on our referee; and our order should de- before a fact, an on subservience to asserted termination of agent. an “conclusive” determination administrative preserved, the court Thus of habeas justice jurisdiction, its still run its full maintain course. Carter, J., concurred. application rehearing
Petitioner’s was denied Decem- J., Schauer, Carter, J., ber 1947. voted for a rehear- ing. A. No. 20038. In Bank. Nov.
[L. 1947.] CLARA BURNAND, Respondent, KUHRTS v. JUAN J. al.,
IRIGOYEN et Appellants; Defendants and MARIE ANTOINETTE IRIGOYEN, Minor, etc., Cross-Com- plainant and Appellant.