Succop

People v. Succop

Good Law
1966 Cal. LEXIS 216·55 Cal. Rptr. 397·65 Cal. 2d 483·421 P.2d 405
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 16, 1966Crim. No. 10086California2,751 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Burke, J.

Donald Markell Succop appeals from an order of commitment adjudging him to be a probable mentally disordered sex offender 1 and directing that he be confined in a state hospital for observation and diagnosis for a period not to exceed 90 days.

*485 Succop, who represented himself at the trial, was found guilty by a jury of indecent exposure (Pen. Code, § 314, subd. 1). He admitted two prior convictions of the same offense. The court was of the view that he might be a mentally disordered sex offender and appointed two psychiatrists to examine him and ordered a probation report.

Subsequently the court stated that the court-appointed psychiatrists had reported that Succop was a possible sexual psychopath' and that the court was going to commit him to a state hospital for observation. Succop said that he had sent the court a request for a subpoena of certain hospital records and thought he had a right to cross-examine the psychiatrists. The court stated that it was not holding a hearing. At that point the court adjudged defendant to be a probable mentally disordered sex offender, 2 and the order directed that he be confined at a designated hospital for observation and diagnosis for…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.