204 Cal. App. 4th 377
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Herzog completed his sentence for voluntary manslaughter and accessory to three murders on Sept. 18, 2010; the Department selected a parole placement with strict controls in Lassen County after evaluating alternatives.
- Placement considerations included 35-mile proximity to victims/witnesses, public safety, and monitoring capabilities; San Joaquin was rejected due to victims within 35 miles.
- Lassen County placement: trailer in a fenced compound at High Desert State Prison, Department-paid living expenses, curfews, escort requirements, GPS monitoring, and restricted movement.
- Local officials and residents objected (over 6,000 signed in opposition); Elk Grove and Modoc County were considered but failed 35-mile or logistical criteria.
- Petition for writ of mandamus was filed by the City of Susanville and Lassen County; trial court ordered removal; Department appealed.
- Before dispositive briefing, Herzog died; the court addressed mootness and chose to proceed on the merits under public-interest exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Department abused its discretion in placement under §3003 | Herzog’s placement burdens Lassen County; authorities ignored alternatives and public objections. | Department properly weighed statutory factors and prioritized public safety and supervision. | No abuse of discretion; Lassen placement upheld. |
| Whether procedural notice/notice of reasons complied with statutory requirements | Department failed to include written reasons in the notice as §3058.6(b) requires. | Notice timing complied; reasons were explained in other proceedings and records. | Not an abuse of discretion; failure to include written reasons did not mandate mandamus relief. |
| Whether mootness precludes relief given Herzog's death | Death renders relief futile; issues unlikely to recur. | Public-interest issues likely to recur; court should address them. | The appeal proceeds on the merits despite death; issues likely to recur; not moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Roberts, 36 Cal.4th 575 (2005) (exclusive parole placement jurisdiction and discretion)
- People v. Stevens, 89 Cal.App.4th 585 (2001) (parole placement standards and discretion)
- McCarthy v. Superior Court, 191 Cal.App.3d 1023 (1987) (parole placement mandamus when statutory mandate violated)
- State Bd. of Education v. Honig, 13 Cal.App.4th 720 (1993) (public interest and mootness in issues of statewide concern)
- In re William M., 3 Cal.3d 16 (1970) (mootness exception for questions of broad public interest)