In Re Brown

The People have appealed from an order, in proceedings instituted by a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which vacated one of the two commitments under which the petitioner was serving concurrent terms, and directed the Adult Authority to exclude the purported sentence thereunder from its consideration. (See In re Cruz (1966) 64 Cal.2d 178, 181-182 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 289 , 410 P.2d 825 ]; Neal v. State of California (1960) 55 Cal.2d 11, 21 [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 607 , 357 P.2d 839 ] [cert. den. 365 U.S. 823 ( 5 L.Ed.2d 700 , 81 S.Ct. 708 )]; and In re Cline (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 115, 118 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 233 ] [cert. den. 392 U.S. 938 ( 20 L.Ed.2d 1397 , 88 S.Ct. 2311 )].) The petition and order are predicated on the theory that the trial court lost jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment in question under the provisions of section 1203.2a of the Penal Code.

On December 20, 1967, petitioner was convicted in the Sacramento County Superior Court of the crime of the sale of marijuana in violation of Health and Safely Code section 11531. He was placed on probation for three years, during which period, the imposition of judgment and sentence was suspended. Thereafter, on or about June 2,…