People v. Wagner
2 Cal. App. 5th 774
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Jesse Wagner was convicted in 2006 of multiple offenses arising from acting as a bounty hunter and was paroled in 2011.
- In 2014 police seized items from Wagner suggesting impersonation of an officer; Wagner sued the arresting officers and obtained return of some seized items.
- A parole revocation petition was filed; at the revocation hearing a parole officer testified he had instructed Wagner (on May 13, 2014) not to drive a Crown Victoria and that Wagner was later seen driving it; the court revoked parole, imposed 120 days local custody, and reinstated parole.
- After release, Wagner obtained emails showing the parole officer had earlier stated he did not plan to discuss the Crown Victoria at the May 13 meeting; Wagner contended this evidence showed retaliation/false testimony by the parole officer.
- Wagner filed a Penal Code § 1473.6 motion to vacate the revocation order as based on newly discovered evidence of government-official misconduct; the trial court dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction without reaching the merits.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the trial court did have jurisdiction under § 1473.6 to adjudicate Wagner’s motion and remanded for a merits hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a parole-revocation order is a "judgment" subject to relief under Penal Code § 1473.6 | The People argued § 1473.6 applies only to judgments from convictions and not to parole-revocation orders | Wagner argued the revocation order is a final postjudgment determination affecting substantial rights and thus falls within § 1473.6 | The court held a parole-revocation order is a "judgment" within § 1473.6 and the trial court had jurisdiction to hear the motion |
| Whether § 1473.6 relief is available where newly discovered evidence shows a government official testified falsely at a revocation hearing | People contended § 1473.6 did not reach revocation proceedings | Wagner contended the newly discovered emails fit § 1473.6(b)–(d) criteria for false testimony by a government official | Court assumed § 1473.6 applies and remanded for merits; jurisdictional dismissal was reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Osorio, 235 Cal.App.4th 1408 (discusses appealability and postjudgment character of parole-revocation orders)
- People v. Germany, 133 Cal.App.4th 784 (legislative history and purpose of § 1473.6 to address official misconduct discovered after custody)
- In re Jones, 57 Cal.2d 860 (parole considered a form of custody supporting habeas relief)
- Passavanti v. Williams, 225 Cal.App.3d 1602 (an "order" that finally determines rights functions as a judgment)
- City of Shasta Lake v. County of Shasta, 75 Cal.App.4th 1 (form/label of a document does not make it a judgment; substance controls)
- Baker v. Castaldi, 235 Cal.App.4th 218 (same principle regarding what constitutes a judgment)