Ramirez v. Super. Ct.
D072473
| Cal. Ct. App. | Sep 22, 2017Background
- Ramirez, an Arizona felon on lifetime probation, transferred probation supervision to California under the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision (ICAOS); his ICAOS application included an extradition waiver.
- Arizona alleged probation violations that occurred in California, obtained an ICAOS-marked warrant and probation-violation order, and sought Ramirez’s return under the ICAOS.
- Imperial County charged Ramirez via a fugitive/extradition complaint under California extradition statutes (Pen. Code §1548 et seq.), arrested him, and proceeded with an identification/hearing.
- Defense raised competency concerns; two evaluators diagnosed schizophrenia and found Ramirez incompetent to assist in proceedings. The superior court found him incompetent but nonetheless ordered extradition, concluding identity was overwhelming and he had waived extradition.
- The Court of Appeal stayed the extradition order, found the superior court erred by treating the ICAOS request as a regular extradition, and directed vacatur of the extradition order.
- The court held ICAOS procedures (including a Rule 5.108 probable cause hearing) govern returns under the Compact and that California competency statutes (§1367 et seq.) apply to ICAOS probable cause hearings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Arizona’s request was governed by ICAOS or California extradition law | Ramirez: ICAOS governs because Arizona sought return under the compact; thus ICAOS procedures apply | District Attorney: Extradition under §1551 is available and California could treat it as extradition instead of ICAOS retaking | ICAOS governs; Arizona invoked the Compact and California must follow ICAOS rules rather than standard extradition statutes |
| Whether the receiving state had to hold an ICAOS probable cause hearing and provide notice/disclosure | Ramirez: He was entitled to ICAOS Rule 5.108 protections (written notice, disclosure, hearing) before retaking | DA: ICAOS not exclusive; extradition could be pursued alternatively; inferiores claimed procedures below were sufficient | Rule 5.108 required; the proceedings below failed to provide adequate written notice and disclosure and thus were fundamentally unfair; extradition order vacated |
| Whether California’s criminal competency statutes apply to ICAOS probable cause hearings | Ramirez: Incompetency bars proceeding; should be treated like revocation proceedings under §1367 et seq. | DA: Competency in extradition context questionable; ICAOS rules silent on competence | Competency statutes (§1367 et seq.) apply to ICAOS probable cause hearings because the hearing is part of revocation proceedings and statutes aim to protect incompetent defendants |
| Effect of Ramirez’s extradition waiver on ICAOS procedures | Ramirez: Waiver does not eliminate ICAOS procedural protections | DA: Waiver or extradition process might render competency or ICAOS procedures unnecessary | The waiver does not supplant ICAOS-required probable cause hearing or competency protections; ICAOS rules and California statutes control |
Key Cases Cited
- Wofford v. Superior Court, 230 Cal.App.4th 1023 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (ICAOS rules have force of law in California)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. 1973) (procedural protections required in probation revocation)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1972) (due process in parole revocation proceedings)
- People v. Prunty, 62 Cal.4th 59 (Cal. 2015) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- People v. Hubbard, 63 Cal.4th 378 (Cal. 2016) (statutory construction principles)
- Tarantino v. Superior Court, 48 Cal.App.3d 465 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975) (purpose of competency statutes is to protect defendants unable to defend themselves)
- People v. Jernigan, 110 Cal.App.4th 131 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (competency proceedings protect the accused)