47 Cal.App.5th 826
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Englebert Perlas, convicted of second-degree murder in 1996, was released on lifetime parole in 2015 with a no-alcohol condition and other standard terms.
- In April 2017 Perlas admitted drinking and was accused of shoving his wife during a dispute; police arrested him on misdemeanor charges (spousal battery, child endangerment, vandalism).
- His parole agent prepared a revocation petition and evaluation stating: “Intermediate sanctions have been considered. However, they have been deemed not appropriate at this time,” and that the PVDMI risk tool recommended the most intensive response: refer for revocation.
- The Department filed a petition to revoke parole based on admitted alcohol use and alleged domestic battery; the trial court sustained Perlas’s demurrer and dismissed the petition for failing to adequately consider/interrogate intermediate sanctions.
- The Court of Appeal reviewed whether the petition and accompanying report satisfied Penal Code §3000.08(f) and California Rules of Court rule 4.541(e) by showing consideration and rejection of intermediate sanctions, and whether dismissal was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the revocation petition sufficiently showed the agency considered and rejected intermediate sanctions before seeking revocation | The Department argued the report, including the PVDMI result and agent narrative, sufficiently showed consideration and individualized reasons why intermediate sanctions were inappropriate | Perlas argued the report merely parrots the statute and fails to identify any specific intermediate sanctions considered or explain why they were rejected | The court held the petition met §3000.08(f) and rule 4.541(e): the PVDMI recommendation plus the agent’s narrative adequately individualized the decision to seek revocation |
| Whether rule 4.541(e) requires the agency to list and rebut specific intermediate sanctions | People: no such detailed listing is required; agency need not enumerate each sanction considered and rejected | Perlas: rule requires singling out at least one intermediate sanction considered and an explanation why parole placement was not appropriate | The court agreed with People: there is no rule requirement to list each intermediate sanction; the report need only provide individualized reasons why intermediate sanctions are inappropriate |
| Whether dismissal on demurrer was appropriate rather than allowing amendment or other relief | People: even if technically deficient, no prejudice shown; court could have permitted amendment | Perlas: dismissal proper because pleading inadequate under §1004 grounds | The court held dismissal was improper; the petition was sufficient and, in any event, amendment could have been an option; reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (parole revocation is a special administrative proceeding, not a criminal prosecution)
- People v. Osorio, 235 Cal.App.4th 1408 (2015) (standard for reviewing demurrer in parole revocation proceedings; role of PVDMI)
- Williams v. Superior Court, 230 Cal.App.4th 636 (2014) (reasons for rejecting intermediate sanctions must be individualized)
- People v. Biane, 58 Cal.4th 381 (2013) (demurrer and sufficiency of accusatory pleadings principles)
- People v. DeLeon, 3 Cal.5th 640 (2017) (discussion of appellate review and precedential limits)
- People v. Hronchak, 2 Cal.App.5th 884 (2016) (petition can comply with rule 4.541 without listing every intermediate sanction considered)
- People v. Stone, 46 Cal.4th 131 (2009) (notice requirements — defendant must be informed sufficiently to prepare a defense)
- People v. Manfredi, 169 Cal.App.4th 622 (2008) (trial court discretion to permit amendment of deficient accusatory pleadings)