In re Trejo
10 Cal. App. 5th 972
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Petitioner (Trejo) committed second-degree murder at age 17 (1979), received 15 years-to-life; later, at age 20 (1982) pled guilty to assault on a peace officer and possession of a weapon while confined and was sentenced to a consecutive 4-year determinate term under Penal Code § 1170.1(c).
- Under Penal Code § 3051 (youth offender parole), petitioner—whose controlling offense was committed before age 23—was found suitable for parole in June 2015; the Board’s grant became effective November 2, 2015 (release later administratively delayed to serve the 4-year consecutive term).
- Petitioner filed habeas petitions challenging the lawfulness of continued incarceration beyond the youth-offender parole date, arguing § 3051/§ 3046 required release when parole became effective and that any over-custody must be credited against parole supervision.
- The Marin Superior Court denied relief; the Court of Appeal II (Division Two) granted habeas relief, concluding the Board and CDCR erred in requiring service of the consecutive in‑prison term after the § 3051 parole grant.
- The court ordered petitioner’s release date amended to November 2, 2015, and that days held after that date be deducted from his parole supervision term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a youth-offender granted parole under §3051 must still serve a consecutive §1170.1(c) in‑prison determinate term before release | Trejo: §3051 (and §3046(c)) supersedes other sentencing rules and entitles a youth-offender found suitable to be released when parole becomes effective, regardless of a §1170.1(c) consecutive term | AG: §1170.1(c) expressly makes consecutive in‑prison terms commence when the prisoner would otherwise be released; §3051 does not eliminate §1170.1(c) obligations | Held for Trejo: §3051’s youth‑offender release entitlement controls here; Board/CDCR erred in requiring service of the consecutive §1170.1(c) term after the §3051 parole date |
| Whether petitioner had to exhaust administrative remedies or be transferred venue | Trejo: exhaustion not required because the Board—not CDCR—made the decision; venue in county of commitment proper | AG: administrative remedy / CDCR calculation should be exhausted; transfer to appellate district of confinement appropriate | Held for Trejo: exhaustion not required (Board decision); venue in county of conviction/commitment proper; court reached merits |
| Whether time unlawfully served past the effective parole date must be credited against parole supervision | Trejo: time in custody after parole became effective must be credited against the five-year parole term | AG: relying on precedent that lawful custody need not be credited and Tate/Lira principles, argues no credit if time was lawfully served | Held for Trejo: incarceration beyond the valid parole date was unlawful here, so those days must be deducted from parole supervision period |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (juvenile sentencing differences; mandatory LWOP for juveniles unconstitutional)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (juveniles cannot receive life without parole for nonhomicide offenses)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (juvenile death penalty unconstitutional)
- In re Lawrence, 44 Cal.4th 1181 (Board is the administrative agency generally authorized to grant parole)
- In re Thompson, 172 Cal.App.3d 256 (consecutive in-prison terms commence when prisoner would otherwise have been released)
- In re Coleman, 236 Cal.App.4th 1013 (interpretation of §1170.1(c) and commencement of consecutive in‑prison terms)
- In re Tate, 135 Cal.App.4th 756 (§1170.1(c) consecutive in‑prison term treated as separate term)
- People v. Franklin, 63 Cal.4th 261 (§3051 and §3046 effect on juvenile parole eligibility and statutory scheme)
- In re Lira, 58 Cal.4th 573 (remedies and consequences when Governor reverses parole and courts later reinstate grant)