People v. Williams ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • Filed 11/23/21
    CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION ONE
    THE PEOPLE,
    Plaintiff and Respondent,
    A159914
    v.
    JERRY DENTON WILLIAMS, JR.,                    (Sonoma County
    Super. Ct. No. PRL-201698-1)
    Defendant and Appellant.
    Jerry Denton Williams, Jr., was convicted of murder in 1995 and
    sentenced to 30 years to life in prison. He was released on lifetime parole in
    2018, but the following year, he was charged with two misdemeanors, and the
    district attorney filed a petition to revoke his parole. After a contested
    hearing, the trial court determined that Williams had committed one of the
    charged offenses and remanded him to prison, the required sanction
    whenever a court finds that a lifetime parolee has violated parole. (Pen.
    Code, § 3000.08, subd. (h) (section 3000.08(h).)1
    On appeal, Williams claims the trial court erred by refusing to refer the
    matter to the parole agency for a written report before ruling on the petition.
    We agree. Under the plain terms of section 1203.2, subdivision (b)(1)
    (section 1203.2(b)(1)), a court is required to receive a parole agency’s written
    report before ruling on a parole revocation petition initiated by a district
    attorney. There is no implied exception to this requirement when such a
    1   All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
    1
    petition is filed against a lifetime parolee such as Williams, because the
    report is not pointless even though a court has no discretion to impose
    intermediate sanctions.
    As Williams concedes, this appeal is moot because he has since been
    paroled again. (See People v. DeLeon (2017) 
    3 Cal.5th 640
    , 645–646 [finding
    of “parole violation does not constitute a disadvantageous collateral
    consequence for purposes of assessing mootness”].) Nevertheless, we agree
    with him that the issue is of continuing public interest and likely to recur yet
    evade appellate review, and the Attorney General does not argue otherwise.
    Therefore, we “ ‘exercise [our] discretion to decide the issue for the guidance
    of future proceedings before dismissing the case as moot.’ ”2 (People v.
    Gregerson (2011) 
    202 Cal.App.4th 306
    , 321; see, e.g., DeLeon, at p. 646;
    People v. Castel (2017) 
    12 Cal.App.5th 1321
    , 1325 (Castel).)
    I.
    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL
    BACKGROUND
    In 1995, after a jury convicted Williams of one count of first degree
    murder and found true that he personally used a firearm, he was sentenced
    to 30 years to life in prison.3 He was released from prison in June 2018 and
    placed on lifetime parole, as required based on his indeterminate sentence for
    murder. (§ 3000.1, subd. (a)(1).)
    Approximately 18 months later, on December 1, 2019, a Rohnert Park
    police officer pulled over the vehicle in which Williams was a passenger. The
    2Given this disposition, we need not address the Attorney General’s
    argument that even if the trial court was required to obtain a written report,
    the requirement is directory only and the failure to comply with it did not
    invalidate the order revoking Williams’s parole.
    3Division Two of this court subsequently affirmed the judgment.
    (People v. Williams (Mar. 27, 1997, A070508) [nonpub. opn.].)
    2
    officer performed a parole search and found a methamphetamine pipe in
    Williams’s jacket. During the booking process at jail, the officer discovered
    Williams had a credit card in a different name in his wallet.
    Two days later, the Sonoma County District Attorney filed a complaint
    charging Williams with two misdemeanors, petty theft of lost property and
    possession of drug paraphernalia.4 On the same date, the district attorney
    also filed a petition to revoke parole under sections 1203.2 and 3000.08,
    alleging that Williams violated his parole conditions by committing the
    misdemeanors. The trial court summarily revoked parole and set a parole
    violation hearing.
    On January 9, 2020, the date set for the violation hearing, Williams
    moved to continue the hearing because the trial court had failed “to refer the
    petition to the parole agency for a written report to justify the reasons why
    intermediate sanctions were not employed,” as required under
    section 1203.2(b)(1). After a discussion with counsel at the hearing’s outset,
    the court noted it was “a somewhat novel issue” whether section 1203.2(b)(1)
    requires “a report from parole regarding intermediate sanctions on a person
    who is on a lifetime grant of parole.” The court decided to go forward with
    the evidentiary portion of the hearing “so that at the very least should the
    Court be required under [section] 3000.08(h) to simply make a finding and
    then refer the matter to the Board of Parole, that part will be done and we
    won’t have wasted today’s calendar call, but should [section] 1203.2 govern,
    the Court will not make any findings today with regard to the evidence and
    the Court will make the appropriate referral. [¶] And then what the Court
    4The charges were brought under section 485 (petty theft) and Health
    and Safety Code section 11364, subdivision (a) (possession of drug
    paraphernalia).
    3
    will do is put the matter over two to three weeks at counsels’ convenience so
    the Court can do its own research and try to parse this out.”
    Despite indicating it would not make findings on whether Williams
    violated his parole conditions, the trial court did so after the evidence was
    presented. It rejected the petty-theft allegation but found that Williams had
    possessed drug paraphernalia and therefore violated parole. It then asked
    for supplemental briefing “to guide this Court on what to do with the next
    step, whether that is to refer the matter to parole for possible intermediate
    sanctions or to directly refer the matter back to the Board of Parole[].”
    In February 2020, after the trial court received the parties’
    supplemental briefs, it concluded that section 1203.2(b)(1) did not require it
    to obtain a written report. Although the court acknowledged the statute’s
    “mandatory shall language” and the absence of “an exception for a lifetime
    parolee,” it concluded that it would be “an absurd result” to have to refer
    Williams’s case to parole for a report. The court explained that if it did so,
    the resulting report would “be of zero utility because I can’t exercise any
    discretion based on the recommendations contained therein.” The court
    therefore remanded Williams to prison custody “for further proceedings
    regarding any parole revocation.” Williams appealed the order.
    A few months later, on June 30, 2020, the Board of Parole Hearings
    found Williams suitable for parole, and he was released from prison. As far
    as this court is aware, he is not currently incarcerated.5
    5 We grant Williams’s unopposed request for judicial notice of his
    appellate counsel’s declaration regarding his parole status and a portion of
    his California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) online
    profile showing past Board of Parole Hearing actions.
    4
    II.
    DISCUSSION
    A.    The Law Governing Petitions to Revoke Parole
    When defendants convicted of certain offenses, including murder, are
    released from prison, they are placed on parole under the supervision of
    CDCR. (§ 3000.08, subds. (a), (i); Castel, supra, 12 Cal.App.5th at p. 1325;
    see § 667.5, subd. (c)(1).) Either the parole agency or the district attorney
    may file a petition to revoke parole. (§ 1203.2, subds. (a), (b)(1); Castel, at
    p. 1325.) “[T]he district attorney generally seeks parole revocation as the
    result of parolees’ criminal conduct,” whereas the parole agency tends to do so
    as a result of “more minor or technical violations.” (People v. Zamudio (2017)
    
    12 Cal.App.5th 8
    , 16–17 (Zamudio).) “Although it is possible for [the parole]
    agency to file a revocation based on allegations of criminal conduct, by and
    large the two [types of petitions] involve different degrees of parole
    violations.” (Castel, supra, 12 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1327–1328.) The relevant
    rules and procedures differ depending on which entity files the petition.
    We begin with petitions filed by the parole agency. Upon learning of a
    potential parole violation supported by good cause, the parole agency “may
    impose additional and appropriate conditions of supervision, including
    rehabilitation and treatment services and appropriate incentives for
    compliance, and impose immediate, structured, and intermediate sanctions
    for parole violations, including flash incarceration in a city or a county jail.”
    (§ 3000.08, subd. (d).) But if the parole agency concludes “following
    application of its assessment processes . . . that intermediate sanctions up to
    and including flash incarceration are not appropriate,” it must file a petition
    to revoke parole in the trial court. (§ 3000.08, subd. (f).)
    Every revocation petition filed by the parole agency must “include a
    written report that contains additional information regarding the petition,
    5
    including the relevant terms and conditions of parole, the circumstances of
    the alleged underlying violation, the history and background of the parolee,
    and any recommendations.” (§ 3000.08, subd. (f); Cal. Rules of Court,
    rule 4.541(c).)6 In addition, the report “must include the reasons for that
    agency’s determination that intermediate sanctions without court
    intervention as authorized by Penal Code section[] 3000.08(f) . . . are
    inappropriate responses to the alleged violations.” (Rule 4.541(e).)
    “Pursuant to . . . section 3015, [CDCR] has developed a parole violation
    decisionmaking instrument (PVDMI), a form used to determine what
    sanctions should be imposed for a parole violation, and whether a petition to
    revoke parole should be filed.”7 (People v. Osorio (2015) 
    235 Cal.App.4th 1408
    , 1412 (Osorio), disapproved on another ground by DeLeon, supra,
    3 Cal.5th at p. 646.) The explanation of why intermediate sanctions are
    inappropriate must “be ‘individualized to the particular parolee, as opposed
    to a generic statement.’ ” (Perlas, supra, 47 Cal.App.5th at pp. 829, 832–833
    [holding these requirements were satisfied in proceeding against lifetime
    parolee].)
    A revocation petition filed by the district attorney, on the other hand,
    may be submitted without an accompanying report by the parole agency.
    6   All further rule references are to the California Rules of Court.
    7 “[The] PVDMI is ‘a standardized tool that provides ranges of
    appropriate sanctions for parole violators given relevant case factors,
    including, but not limited to, offense history, risk of reoffense based on a
    validated risk assessment tool, need for treatment services, the number and
    type of current and prior parole violations, and other relevant statutory
    requirements.’ (§ 3015, subd. (b)(1).) . . . [The] PVDMI ‘ “[i]dentifies the
    appropriate response to each violation based on the offender’s risk level and
    the severity of the violation.” ’ [Citation.] Parole agents may recommend
    overriding the PVDMI-recommended response.” (People v. Perlas (2020)
    
    47 Cal.App.5th 826
    , 833, fn. 4 (Perlas).)
    6
    “[B]y its terms section 3000.08 applies only to parole revocation petitions filed
    by the ‘supervising parole agency.’ Similarly, rule 4.541 expressly applies to
    ‘supervising agency petitions for revocation of . . . parole . . . .’
    (Rule 4.541(a).) Accordingly, the district attorney is not obligated to file
    revocation petitions with the written report mandated by those provisions,
    nor must the petition state why intermediate sanctions are not considered
    appropriate.” (Zamudio, supra, 12 Cal.App.5th at p. 15.)
    But while a written report need not accompany the petition, one is still
    required. Section 1203.2(b)(1) provides that after a petition is filed, “[t]he
    [trial] court shall refer . . . the petition to the . . . parole officer. After the
    receipt of a written report from the . . . parole officer, the court shall read and
    consider the report and . . . the petition and may modify, revoke, or terminate
    the supervision of the supervised person . . . if the interests of justice so
    require.” Thus, once the court receives a DA-initiated petition, it must refer
    the petition to the parole agency for a written report, and it must consider
    that report before ruling on the petition. (Ibid.; Zamudio, supra,
    12 Cal.App.5th at p. 15.)
    As Zamudio observed, “section 1203.2 does not describe the contents of
    the written report” required when the district attorney files a revocation
    petition, “nor does it refer to, or incorporate, the minimum requirements for
    the report mandated by section 3000.08, subdivision (f).” (Zamudio, supra,
    12 Cal.App.5th at p. 15.) But based on subdivision (g) of section 1203.2—
    which provides that the statute “does not affect the authority of the
    supervising agency to impose intermediate sanctions, including flash
    incarceration, to persons supervised on parole pursuant to
    Section 3000.[0]8”—Zamudio concluded that the report in DA-initiated
    proceedings “should include an intermediate sanctions assessment. Even if
    7
    not required by statute or the California Rules of Court, the best practice
    would be for the parole officer to address the appropriateness of intermediate
    sanctions to assist the court in exercising its discretion in the interest of
    justice. Such an assessment would also serve as a check on potentially
    overzealous deputy district attorneys or parole officers.” (Zamudio, at p. 15;
    accord People v. Kurianski (2020) 
    54 Cal.App.5th 777
    , 781 (Kurianski).)
    Generally, “[u]pon a finding that [a parolee] has violated the
    conditions of parole,” the trial court is authorized “to do any of the following:
    [¶] (1) Return the person to parole supervision with modifications of
    conditions, if appropriate, including a period of incarceration in a county jail.
    [¶] (2) Revoke parole and order the person to confinement in a county jail. [¶]
    (3) Refer the person to a reentry court . . . or other evidence-based program in
    the court’s discretion.” (§ 3000.08, subd. (f).) These options do not exist when
    the court adjudicates a petition concerning a lifetime parolee, such as
    Williams. Rather, “[n]otwithstanding any other law, if . . . the court
    determines that [such a] person has committed a violation of law or violated
    [the person’s] conditions of parole, the person on parole shall be remanded to
    the custody of [CDCR] and the jurisdiction of the Board of Parole Hearings
    for the purpose of future parole consideration.” (§ 3000.08(h); see § 3000.1,
    subd. (a).) In other words, once the court finds that a lifetime parolee has
    violated parole, revocation is “mandatory.” (Perlas, supra, 47 Cal.App.5th at
    p. 836.)
    B.    A Trial Court Must Refer a Parole Revocation Petition Filed by
    the District Attorney to the Parole Agency for a Written Report in
    Cases Involving Lifetime Parolees.
    Williams claims that the trial court erred by refusing to refer the
    petition to the parole agency for a written report before it determined
    whether he had violated parole. We agree.
    8
    Whether a trial court must refer a DA-initiated revocation petition to
    the parole agency for a written report in the case of a lifetime parolee is a
    question of statutory interpretation that we review de novo. (See People v.
    Wilson (2021) 
    66 Cal.App.5th 874
    , 878.) “ ‘Our fundamental task in
    interpreting a statute is to determine the Legislature’s intent so as to
    effectuate the law’s purpose. We first examine the statutory language, giving
    it a plain and commonsense meaning. We do not examine that language in
    isolation, but in the context of the statutory framework as a whole in order to
    determine its scope and purpose and to harmonize the various parts of the
    enactment. If the language is clear, courts must generally follow its plain
    meaning unless a literal interpretation would result in absurd consequences
    the Legislature did not intend. If the statutory language permits more than
    one reasonable interpretation, courts may consider other aids, such as the
    statute’s purpose, legislative history, and public policy.’ ” (Ibid., quoting
    Coalition of Concerned Communities, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2004)
    
    34 Cal.4th 733
    , 737.)
    As we have said, by its terms section 1203.2(b)(1) requires a written
    report from the parole agency when the district attorney files a revocation
    petition. The provision first addresses the ways in which a proceeding to
    modify, revoke, or terminate parole may be brought: by the trial court on its
    own motion, or upon a petition by the parole agency, the district attorney, or
    the parolee. (§ 1203.2(b)(1).) The provision then provides, “The court shall
    refer its motion or the petition to the . . . parole officer. After the receipt of a
    written report from the . . . parole officer, the court shall read and consider
    the report and either its motion or the petition and may modify, revoke, or
    terminate the supervision of the supervised person upon the grounds set
    forth in subdivision (a) if the interests of justice so require.” (§ 1203.2(b)(1).)
    9
    We agree with Williams that the plain language of section 1203.2(b)(1)
    requires a trial court to refer any revocation petition, no matter who files it,
    to the parole agency for a written report. Not only does the statute state
    without qualification that the court “shall” refer the petition to the parole
    agency, the court’s subsequent actions on the petition occur “after the receipt
    of [the] written report.” (§ 1203.2(b)(1).) Nor is there any express exception
    to the written-report requirement in proceedings involving lifetime parolees.
    Section 3000.08(h), which requires remand to prison in the case of lifetime
    parolees, does not apply until “the court determines that the [lifetime
    parolee] has committed a violation of law or violated his or her conditions of
    parole.” Section 1203.2(b)(1) directs a court to obtain a written report before
    it considers the petition, however, so by its terms section 3000.08(h) does not
    require a different procedure in the case of a lifetime parolee.
    The Attorney General argues that, to the contrary, the plain terms of
    section 1203.2(b)(1) establish that a written report is not required in a
    proceeding involving a lifetime parolee. He reasons this is so because the
    provision requires a court to “ ‘consider’ the . . . report when determining
    whether to ‘modify’ the parolee’s supervision conditions or to ‘revoke’ his or
    her parole status,” yet in the case of a lifetime parolee the court “has no
    discretion to choose between these two sanctions or to otherwise impose
    intermediate sanctions.” (Quoting § 1203.2(b)(1).)
    This reading is unpersuasive. We agree that a trial court has no
    discretion to do anything but remand a lifetime parolee to prison once it finds
    that the person violated parole. But section 1203.2(b)(1) does not state that
    the court considers the written report only in choosing whether to modify,
    revoke, or terminate supervision—options that become available once a
    parole violation is established. (See People v. Wilson, supra, 
    66 Cal.App.5th 10
    at p. 885.) Rather, the statute directs that after receiving the report, the
    court “shall read and consider the report and either its motion or the
    petition,” and the court then “may modify, revoke, or terminate” parole
    supervision. (§ 1203.2(b)(1).) Were it the case that “consider” meant
    “consider for the purpose only of deciding whether to modify, revoke, or
    terminate parole,” that limitation would apply equally to the petition itself,
    which is also to be “read and consider[ed].” (Ibid.) Such an interpretation is
    unworkable, because of course a court considers a revocation petition in
    deciding whether a violation has even occurred, not just in determining what
    to do once a violation is established.
    The Attorney General also argues that interpreting section 1203.2(b)(1)
    to require a written report in lifetime parolee cases would “lead to absurd
    results” by “requiring a trial court to receive an intermediate sanctions
    assessment that it has no discretion to consider or act upon.” Again, we
    agree that the court has no choice but to remand a lifetime parolee to prison
    once it finds a parole violation. In the context of this case, this means that by
    the time the trial court addressed whether a written report was required, it
    was pointless to obtain one since the parole violation had already been found.
    But Williams sought a continuance to obtain a report before the court decided
    he violated parole. The question presented is thus whether it is absurd to
    require a written report earlier in the process. We think it is not.
    As do the parties, we focus primarily on the utility of the parole
    agency’s assessment of intermediate sanctions. As indicated above, although
    this information is not statutorily required to be in the written report when
    the district attorney files a revocation petition, the case law indicates it
    normally should be. (Kurianski, supra, 54 Cal.App.5th at p. 781; Zamudio,
    supra, 12 Cal.App.5th at p. 15; see Castel, supra, 12 Cal.App.5th at p. 1328
    11
    [“undoubtedly a good practice” for written report filed in DA-initiated
    proceeding to have “same content” as that filed in proceeding initiated by
    parole agency].)8
    The Attorney General argues that this case law is “not controlling”
    because none of the decisions involved lifetime parolees. He argues that in
    fact, “the rationale in Castel and Zamudio supports the [trial] court’s
    interpretation here,” because those decisions “reasoned that the parole
    officer’s written report serves to guide the trial court’s discretion on whether
    to impose intermediate sanctions on the parolee in lieu of parole revocation.”
    The point is valid as far as it goes. A key purpose of the intermediate
    sanctions assessment is “to assist the court in exercising its discretion”
    whether to modify or revoke parole “in the interest of justice.” (Zamudio,
    supra, 12 Cal.App.5th at p. 15; see Kurianski, supra, 54 Cal.App.5th at
    p. 782; Castel, supra, 12 Cal.App.5th at p. 1329.) This purpose cannot be
    served in the case of a lifetime parolee, since a trial court has no such
    discretion upon finding a parole violation.
    Similarly, an intermediate sanctions assessment cannot serve the
    purpose of permitting a trial court to dismiss a DA-initiated petition before
    adjudicating the alleged parole violation. Williams argues that “the trial
    court, upon receipt of the parole agency’s written report and in advance of
    8 Zamudio noted that when “the alleged parole violation also
    constitutes a new felony offense, particularly one involving violence, or when
    the parolee has absconded from parole, it may well be reasonable for the
    court to determine intermediate sanctions would be inappropriate without a
    formal assessment.” (Zamudio, supra, 12 Cal.App.5th at p. 15.) This
    potential basis for concluding that in a DA-initiated proceeding the written
    report need not discuss intermediate sanctions does not apply here, as
    Williams was charged with misdemeanors only. In any case, as explained
    below, we do not rely solely on the report’s effect on the court’s
    decisionmaking about intermediate sanctions to reach our holding.
    12
    conducting a revocation hearing, could choose to follow the parole agency’s
    proposed intermediate sanctions and dismiss the revocation petition without
    making any finding on the allegations in the petition.” To support this
    proposition, he cites Osorio, which reversed a trial court order overruling a
    parolee’s demurrer to a revocation petition filed by the parole agency.
    (Osorio, supra, 235 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1410, 1412–1413.) Although the
    “parole violation was conceded,” it amounted to “talking to two gang members
    for 10 minutes.” (Id. at p. 1415.) The appellate court concluded that the
    “facts alleged in the [revocation] petition” did not “warrant revocation of
    parole,” and the parole agent had erred by rejecting the PVDMI
    recommendation for a lesser sanction. (Ibid.; see Perlas, supra,
    47 Cal.App.5th at p. 834.)
    Osorio does not aid Williams. The decision illustrates that a parolee
    may demur to a petition on the basis that it fails to demonstrate that
    revocation is appropriate. But it does not suggest that a demurrer would lie
    in a DA-initiated proceeding where the parole agency disagreed with the
    district attorney’s choice to seek revocation. “ ‘ “[A] demurrer raises an issue
    of law as to the sufficiency of the accusatory pleading, and it tests only those
    defects appearing on the face of that pleading.” ’ ” (Osorio, supra,
    235 Cal.App.4th at p. 1412.) Since a district attorney initiates a revocation
    proceeding only when the parolee has allegedly committed a crime, the parole
    violation at issue will never be de minimis like the one of concern in Osorio.
    Thus, even if the written report—which in such cases is not part of the
    petition—recommended intermediate sanctions, that would not render the
    petition legally insufficient. And Williams does not suggest any other way in
    which a report could provide a basis for demurring to a petition filed by the
    district attorney.
    13
    Nor do we perceive any method other than a demurrer by which a
    parolee could use the parole agency’s report as a basis to seek dismissal of the
    revocation petition before it is adjudicated. For example, a revocation
    petition cannot be dismissed in the interest of justice under section 1385.
    (People v. Wiley (2019) 
    36 Cal.App.5th 1063
    , 1065, review den. Oct. 9, 2019,
    S257204.) And we agree with the Attorney General that neither
    section 1203.2 nor “any other law authorize[s] courts to outright decline to
    adjudicate a revocation petition because they take issue with the
    Legislature’s judgment regarding the consequences” that flow from finding a
    parole violation.
    But even though the trial court may not dismiss a petition, or impose
    intermediate sanctions short of revoking parole, based on the parole agency’s
    report, we agree with Williams that the report is not pointless because it
    could persuade the district attorney to withdraw the petition. “Our public
    prosecutors are charged with an important and solemn duty to ensure that
    justice and fairness remain the touchstone of our criminal justice system.”
    (People v. Hill (1998) 
    17 Cal.4th 800
    , 847.) “[T]he district attorney is
    expected to exercise his or her discretionary functions in the interests of the
    People at large,” who include “ ‘the defendant and his family and those who
    care about him,’ ” as well as “ ‘the vast majority of citizens who know nothing
    about a particular case, but who give over to the prosecutor the authority to
    seek a just result in their name.’ ” (People v. Eubanks (1996) 
    14 Cal.4th 580
    ,
    589–590, quoting Corrigan, On Prosecutorial Ethics (1986) 13 Hastings
    Const.L.Q. 537, 538–539.) Given this mandate, we can conceive of situations
    in which a district attorney—even though aware of the consequences of filing
    a revocation petition against a lifetime parolee and choosing to do so
    anyway—might reconsider that decision upon learning that the parole agency
    14
    would have imposed intermediate sanctions in light of the parolee’s
    individual circumstances.9 While we agree with the Attorney General that
    such withdrawals are not likely to occur frequently, we do not have such a
    cynical view of district attorneys to conclude that they will never happen.
    Finally, although the parties focus on the requirement for a written
    report to address intermediate sanctions, the report includes other
    background information that might inform a trial court’s decision whether
    parole was violated. For example, depending on the alleged violation, details
    about a parolee’s performance on parole (like the results of drug testing)
    could be relevant if admitted into evidence. Of course, such information could
    also be introduced through the parole agent’s testimony at the revocation
    hearing, as happened here, but it is not absurd to require the parole agency’s
    written input just because the same information might be presented to the
    trial court in other ways.10
    In sum, section 1203.2(b)(1)’s plain language requires a trial court to
    refer a DA-initiated revocation petition to the parole agency for a written
    report. There is no statutory exception to this requirement for proceedings
    involving lifetime parolees, and it is not absurd to require the court to obtain
    the parole agency’s input on intermediate sanctions and other matters before
    adjudicating the alleged violation. Although we recognize that a written
    9Because we conclude that a written report might influence a district
    attorney to dismiss a revocation petition, we need not address Williams’s
    suggestion that “[i]t may even be the case that a determination by the parole
    agency that intermediate sanctions are appropriate could override the district
    attorney’s decision to seek revocation.”
    10 There may be other reasons why it not absurd to require a parole
    agency report in DA-initiated proceedings to revoke a lifetime parolee’s
    parole. For example, at oral argument Williams suggested that having the
    report in the record could be useful in future proceedings before the Board of
    Parole Hearings. We need not assess that suggestion here.
    15
    report will have limited utility in many such cases, “the Legislature’s
    directive is clear, and we are not at liberty to alter it.” (People v. Wiley,
    supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 1069.) The trial court here erred by not obtaining
    a report from the parole agency before determining whether Williams
    violated his parole.
    III.
    DISPOSITION
    The appeal is dismissed as moot.
    16
    _________________________
    Humes, P.J.
    WE CONCUR:
    _________________________
    Margulies, J.
    _________________________
    Sanchez, J.
    People v. Williams A159914
    17
    Trial Court:
    Sonoma County Superior Court
    Trial Judge:
    Hon. Mark A. Urioste
    Counsel for Defendant and Appellant:
    Jonathan Soglin, Jeremy Price, under appointment by the Court of
    Appeal
    Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent:
    Matthew Rodriquez, Acting Attorney General
    Phillip J. Lindsay, Senior Assistant Attorney General
    Sara J. Romano, Supervising Deputy Attorney General
    Michael G. Lagrama, Deputy Attorney General
    People v. Williams A159914
    18
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A159914

Filed Date: 11/23/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/23/2021