People v. Armogeda, 233 Cal. App. 4th 428

In 2000 voters enacted Proposition 36 (Pen. Code § 3063.1), which generally requires treatment instead of incarceration for nonviolent drug possession (NVDP) parole violators and limits parole revocation and incarceration except when the parolee is shown to be dangerous.
In 2011 the Legislature enacted the Postrelease Community Supervision Act (Realignment, § 3450 et seq.), creating postrelease community supervision (PRCS) for most prisoners released after Oct. 1, 2011, while parole remains for higher‑level offenders.
Section 3455 of the Act permits revocation of PRCS and incarceration in jail for violations of supervision, including NVDP offenses, for up to 180 days per custodial sanction.
Evan Armogeda, released to PRCS after a 2011 drug possession conviction, had his supervision revoked twice for drug‑related violations and was sentenced to custodial sanctions (initially 90 days, later 60 days). He appealed the latter order.
The core legal dispute: whether section 3455's authorization to incarcerate PRCS violators for NVDP offenses unlawfully amends Proposition 36 (a voter initiative), in violation of the California Constitution’s limits on legislative amendment of initiatives.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Realignment Act (§ 3455) amended Proposition 36 by allowing incarceration for NVDP supervisees previously protected under Prop. 36	AG: PRCS and parole are distinct; Prop. 36 applies only to parole and therefore § 3455 does not amend Prop. 36	Armogeda: PRCS performs the same postrelease supervisory role as parole; § 3455 effectively strips Prop. 36 protections by permitting incarceration for NVDP violations and thus amends the initiative without voter approval	The court held § 3455, as applied to NVDP offenders and drug‑related PRCS violations, amends Prop. 36 and is invalid to that extent
Whether the Legislature satisfied Prop. 36’s amendment requirements when enacting the Act	AG: (implicit) Act is valid because it did not change Prop. 36’s scope	Armogeda: Even if viewed as an amendment, the Legislature did not obtain the two‑thirds roll‑call approval required by Prop. 36 § 9	The court held the Act did not meet Prop. 36’s two‑thirds roll‑call vote requirement in each house and therefore the amendment condition was not satisfied
Mootness of Armogeda’s appeal after he served custody	AG: relief might be moot because sentence served	Armogeda: case raises issues of continuing public interest affecting many postrelease supervisees	The court exercised discretion to decide the moot claim because it raises recurring public importance in criminal supervision administration

Gardner v. Schwarzenegger, 178 Cal.App.4th 1366 (Cal. Ct. App.) (Prop. 36 requires treatment in lieu of incarceration for many NVDP parole violators)
In re Walters, 15 Cal.3d 738 (Cal. 1975) (appellate courts may decide moot issues of continuing public interest)
People v. Cruz, 207 Cal.App.4th 664 (Cal. Ct. App.) (distinguishing parole and postrelease community supervision after realignment)
People ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co., 24 Cal.4th 415 (Cal. 2000) (de novo review applies to statutory interpretation questions)
People v. Superior Court (Mudge), 54 Cal.App.4th 407 (Cal. Ct. App.) (de novo review of statute constitutionality)
Amwest Sur. Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 11 Cal.4th 1243 (Cal. 1995) (initiative amendment restrictions must be given effect as voters intended)
Proposition 103 Enforcement Project v. Charles Quackenbush, 64 Cal.App.4th 1473 (Cal. Ct. App.) (Legislature may amend initiative statutes only as the voters permitted)