# People v. Austin

> California Supreme Court · November 9, 1981 · 30 Cal. 3d 155

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9613033

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROY FRANK AUSTIN, Defendant and Appellant; In Re ROY FRANK AUSTIN on Habeas Corpus
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** November 9, 1981
- **Citations:** 30 Cal. 3d 155; 178 Cal. Rptr. 312; 636 P.2d 1; 1981 Cal. LEXIS 183
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Newman
- **Judges:** Richardson, Bird
- **Cited by:** 44 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9613033

## Opinion text

*167 NEWMAN, J., Dissenting.
To forbid unequal sentences and at the same time permit unequal confinements accords too much deference, I believe, to the word “rehabilitation.” The discretion allowed appears to me to be almost unconfined and vagrant. (Cf. my dis. opns. in In re Eric J. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 522, 538 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 317 , 601 P.2d 549 ]; People v. Saffell (1979) 25 Cal.3d 223, 235 [ 157 Cal.Rptr. 897 , 599 P.2d 92 ]; People v. Sage (1980) 26 Cal.3d 498, 511 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 280 , 611 P.2d 874 ].)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9613033. Public record. Not legal advice.