25 Cal. App. 5th 429
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Murdock was released on Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS) after a Ventura County conviction and later had a PRCS arrest warrant issued (Oct 2015) when the Probation Agency alleged he absconded; the court summarily revoked and tolled his PRCS.
- While serving a separate three-year Monterey County jail term for an unrelated conviction (Dec 2015), Murdock notified Ventura County of his incarceration and served a Penal Code § 1381 demand (Apr 2016) asking to be brought to Ventura for sentencing/processing within 90 days; the demand was ignored.
- Murdock moved to recall the PRCS warrant and dismiss the revocation matter under § 1381 and alternatively claimed a due process violation for the delay; the trial court denied the motion.
- After completing the Monterey term, Murdock was transported to Ventura (Apr 2017); a PRCS revocation petition was then filed and his PRCS was revoked/reinstated with a 120-day county-jail sanction (June 2017).
- The Court of Appeal held § 1381 did not apply because PRCS and PRCS sanctions are part of an existing sentence (so Murdock did not “remain to be sentenced”), but found Ventura violated Murdock’s due process rights by failing to timely resolve the matter after receiving notice of his whereabouts, causing prejudice (loss of concurrent sanction and continued tolling).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Penal Code § 1381 applies to recall/dismiss a PRCS arrest warrant | § 1381 applies; Murdock demanded production and dismissal if not brought within 90 days | § 1381 does not apply because Murdock had already been sentenced and PRCS/sanctions are not a pending sentencing matter | Denied: § 1381 inapplicable because PRCS and PRCS sanctions are part of the original sentence and defendant did not "remain to be sentenced." |
| Whether failure to timely produce Murdock after notice violated due process and caused prejudice | Failure to timely resolve the revocation after notice violated due process; resulted in tolling and loss of concurrent sanction | No due process violation because Murdock was not yet arrested on the warrant and his liberty interest was conditional/diminished by the Monterey confinement; administrative burden justified delay | Granted: Due process violated under Matthews balancing; Murdock prejudiced (continued tolling and loss of concurrent sanction); order denying recall/dismissal reversed and tolling recalculated. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wagner, 45 Cal.4th 1039 (discusses purpose and scope of § 1381)
- People v. DeLeon, 3 Cal.5th 640 (due process rights in revocation proceedings)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (due process standards for parole revocation)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (three-factor balancing test for procedural due process)
- People v. Garcia, 22 Cal.App.5th 1061 (distinguishing PRCS/parole confinement from traditional criminal sentencing)
- People v. Gutierrez, 245 Cal.App.4th 393 (timely probable cause and revocation hearing rights)
- Rudman v. Superior Court, 36 Cal.App.3d 22 (§ 1381 relief where defendant remained to be sentenced)
- Boles v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.App.3d 479 (limitations on § 1381 when sentence not suspended)
- People v. Steward, 20 Cal.App.5th 407 (PRCS treated as part of the sentence)