In re Arroyo
250 Cal. Rptr. 3d 520
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2019Background
- Tony Jimenez Arroyo was convicted of attempted second-degree robbery and assault with a deadly weapon and received an indeterminate 35-years-to-life sentence under California's Three-Strikes law with serious-felony priors.
- Arroyo was classified as an "indeterminately-sentenced nonviolent offender" and sought habeas relief challenging CDCR regulations that previously made such three-strike inmates ineligible for early parole consideration under Proposition 57 (Cal. Const., art. I, § 32(a)(1)).
- The superior court denied Arroyo's petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; Arroyo then filed in the Court of Appeal and the court issued an order to show cause.
- While proceedings were pending, the Second District decided In re Edwards, holding the CDCR regulation denying eligibility was inconsistent with the Constitution and void; CDCR then adopted emergency regulations implementing eligibility for indeterminately-sentenced nonviolent offenders.
- CDCR updated Arroyo’s record to show a parole-eligible date of January 2019 and the Board of Parole Hearings placed him in the queue for a hearing to occur no later than December 31, 2021.
- Because the relief Arroyo sought (eligibility for early parole consideration) has been provided by the new regulations and CDCR action, the court concluded there was no justiciable controversy remaining.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CDCR regulation rendering three-strike indeterminately sentenced nonviolent offenders ineligible for Proposition 57 early parole consideration was unlawful | Arroyo: regulation unlawfully denied eligibility; seeks declaration invalidating regulation and immediate eligibility for parole review | AG/CDCR: after Edwards and emergency regs, Arroyo is now eligible; case may be moot | Court: Regulation previously invalidated by Edwards; because CDCR’s new regs and actions make Arroyo eligible, petition is moot and denied |
| Whether Arroyo is entitled to an immediate parole hearing or release | Arroyo: claims section 32(a)(1) guarantees an opportunity for parole when primary term complete, implying immediate hearing | CDCR: Section 32(a)(1) guarantees eligibility for consideration, not timing of a suitability hearing or release | Court: Section 32(a)(1) provides eligibility only; timing/suitability are governed by separate regulations not raised here |
| Whether the court may decide timing-of-hearing claims not pleaded in the petition | Arroyo: argues delay until scheduled hearing date leaves relief incomplete | CDCR/AG: timing was not raised in petition; habeas limited to pleaded issues | Court: Claims beyond the petition cannot be added at this late stage; timing issues are not before the court |
| Whether judicial relief is still necessary after CDCR remedial action | Arroyo: contends relief still necessary because hearing scheduled in future; seeks ruling now | CDCR: remedial regulations and placement in hearing queue provide the requested relief | Court: Because Arroyo received the relief sought (eligibility and placement), there is no effective relief a court can grant; matter is moot |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Edwards, 26 Cal.App.5th 1181 (Cal. Ct. App.) (invalidated CDCR regulation denying Proposition 57 eligibility)
- In re Gadlin, 31 Cal.App.5th 784 (Cal. Ct. App.) (applied Edwards and ordered CDCR to consider inmate for early parole consideration)
- In re McGhee, 34 Cal.App.5th 902 (Cal. Ct. App.) (distinguished CDCR parole-eligibility determinations from Board's parole suitability decisions)
- In re Clark, 5 Cal.4th 750 (Cal.) (habeas claims are limited to those alleged in the petition)