People v. Castel
12 Cal. App. 5th 1321
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 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; the petition did not include a written report from the supervising agency.
- Castel demurred, arguing the DA’s petition was facially deficient under People v. Osorio because supervising-agency petitions must be accompanied by a written report; he also argued the statutory difference violated equal protection.
- The trial court overruled the demurrer and rejected the equal protection challenge, reasoning the statutes permit district attorney petitions without an accompanying report and the Legislature had rational bases for the distinction.
- Castel admitted the violation, was sentenced to 150 days, and appealed; the appellate court reached the issues as matters of recurring public interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a DA-filed petition to revoke parole must be accompanied by the written report required when a supervising agency files the petition | Castel: DA petition is defective under Osorio without the statutorily described written report | People: Statutes (§1203.2) do not require a DA to include such a report; court must instead refer to supervising agency for a report | Overruled demurrer — DA petitions need not include the report; referral statute suffices |
| Whether the statutory difference (report required for supervising agency petitions but not DA petitions) violates equal protection | Castel: Similarly situated supervisees are treated differently without rational basis | People: Supervising agencies and DAs have different roles and access to information; rational bases exist | No equal protection violation — classification is rationally related to legitimate government purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Osorio, 235 Cal.App.4th 1408 (statute- and rule-based requirement that supervising-agency revocation petitions be accompanied by a written report)
- People v. Hronchak, 2 Cal.App.5th 884 (applies Osorio rule to required report content)
- Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc., 55 Cal.4th 1185 (standard of review for demurrer)
- Engquist v. Oregon Dep’t of Agric., 553 U.S. 591 (equal protection principles and limits on class-based challenges)
- Johnson v. Department of Justice, 60 Cal.4th 871 (rational-basis review explanation under state and federal equal protection)
- Wilkinson v. State of California, 33 Cal.4th 821 (distinctions in criminal-law contexts and scrutiny levels)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (due process baseline for parole revocation proceedings)