People v. Castel
B271396
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 26, 2017Background
- Ignacio Castel pled no contest to felony assault, was released on parole, and later pled no contest to misdemeanor criminal threats while on parole.
- The Los Angeles County District Attorney filed a petition to revoke Castel’s parole without an accompanying written report.
- Castel demurred, arguing the petition was facially deficient under People v. Osorio because supervising-agency petitions must include a statutorily required written report; he also argued the statutory difference violated equal protection.
- The trial court overruled the demurrer and denied sanctions, reasoning statutes permit district attorney petitions without the report and that the Legislature had rational bases for the distinction.
- Castel admitted the parole violation, was sentenced to 150 days in jail, and appealed; the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district attorney’s petition to revoke parole must be accompanied by the written report required when a supervising agency files such a petition | The People: statutory scheme does not require the DA to attach the report; the court will refer the petition to the supervising agency to prepare the report | Castel: Osorio held a supervising-agency petition is defective without the report; DA-filed petitions should likewise be required to attach the report | Held: DA petitions need not be accompanied by the report; demurrer properly overruled |
| Whether the statutory difference violates equal protection | The People: groups are not similarly situated and, even if they are, there are rational bases for different treatment | Castel: All supervised persons are similarly situated; treating DA-filed petitions differently lacks any rational basis | Held: No equal protection violation — Legislature may rationally distinguish DA petitions because they typically allege crimes and prosecutors lack ready access to supervisory records |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Osorio, 235 Cal.App.4th 1408 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (supervising-agency revocation petitions must include statutorily required written report)
- People v. Chatman, 2 Cal.App.5th 561 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (invalidating arbitrary statutory classification between similar felony-convicted groups)
- People v. Wilkinson, 33 Cal.4th 821 (Cal. 2004) (classification affecting criminal defendants analyzed under rational-basis unless suspect class or fundamental right implicated)
- Johnson v. Department of Justice, 60 Cal.4th 871 (Cal. 2015) (state and federal equal protection analyses are substantially similar)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1972) (due process standards for parole revocation proceedings)
- Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (U.S. 2008) (rational-basis review principles)
- B.H. v. County of San Bernardino, 62 Cal.4th 168 (Cal. 2015) (courts presume legislatures avoid absurd statutory results)