People v. Antonio
10 Cal. App. 5th 1064
Cal. Ct. App.2017Background
- Defendant Jose Alberto Antonio pled guilty to residential robbery with a firearm and received an agreed eight-year California state sentence; other counts dismissed.
- The trial court initially imposed the state sentence, then recalled it after learning of an existing 110-month federal sentence but left the state term unchanged.
- On appeal the court directed the trial court to decide whether the state sentence should run concurrently or consecutively with the federal sentence; on remand the trial court ordered concurrency.
- Antonio asked the trial court to sign an order directing the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Department) to transfer him to federal custody so the BOP could designate where the concurrent sentences would be served; the trial court denied that request.
- Antonio appealed, arguing the trial court erred by not ordering the Department to perform its statutory duty to make him available to the BOP; the People argued the appeal was premature because there was no evidence the Department had failed to act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a state sentencing court must, at sentencing, order the Department to transfer a prisoner to a foreign jurisdiction (federal) when ordering concurrent sentences | The People: appeal premature; no evidence Dept. failed to act; courts should not intervene before administrative remedies are pursued | Antonio: a standalone court order directing transfer is required to give effect to a concurrent sentence and to implement Stoliker | Court: No. Trial court need not issue a separate order. The Department already has a statutory duty; absent evidence of nonperformance, court should not preempt administrative process. |
| Whether the Department’s duty to make a prisoner available is discretionary or mandatory | People: Dept. has a statutory duty and presumed to perform it; plaintiff offered no rebuttal evidence | Antonio: court must ensure performance by issuing an order to avoid passive role that could defeat concurrency | Court: Duty is mandatory under statute and case law, and performance is presumed; judicial preemptive orders are unnecessary. |
| Whether administrative remedies must be exhausted before judicial relief | People: Administrative remedies must be exhausted; premature to seek court order | Antonio: sought immediate court directive to effectuate concurrency | Court: Administrative remedies must be pursued first; courts should not interfere prematurely. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Stoliker, 49 Cal.2d 75 (Cal. 1957) (prisoner entitled to transfer to effect concurrent sentencing by writ of habeas corpus)
- In re Portwood, 236 Cal.App.2d 321 (Cal. Ct. App. 1965) (statutory amendment enables administrative transfer to implement concurrency)
- In re Tomlin, 241 Cal.App.2d 668 (Cal. Ct. App. 1966) (no separate court order needed to trigger transfer duty; state cannot compel foreign jurisdiction to accept custody)
- In re Riddle, 240 Cal.App.2d 707 (Cal. Ct. App. 1966) (California has duty to make defendant available to foreign authorities to effectuate concurrent sentences)
- California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. State Personnel Bd., 10 Cal.4th 1133 (Cal. 1995) (administrative remedies must be exhausted before court intervention)