In re TYRONE A. DOUGLAS on Habeas Corpus.
C091545
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)
Filed 4/1/21
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION; (Super. Ct. Nos. 13F00422, 12F01245)
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING. Petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petition denied.
Matthew Rodriguez, Chief Deputy and Acting Attorney General, Phillip J. Lindsay, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Malone, Supervising Deputy Attorney General and Krista L. Pollard, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent.
Tyrone A. Douglas was convicted of two nonviolent felonies and a violent felony. The trial court chose one of the nonviolent felonies as the primary offense, imposed sentence for that offense, imposed but stayed sentence on the other nonviolent felony offense, and imposed a consecutive term for the violent felony. After Douglas‘s sentencing, the voters passed Proposition 57, the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016, which added
Douglas filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging a regulation adopted by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) that limited the parole-consideration benefit of section 32(a)(1) to inmates who were convicted only of nonviolent felonies, thus excluding from early parole consideration anyone convicted of one or more violent felonies plus one or more nonviolent felonies, so-called “mixed-offense inmates.” (See
Although the language of section 32(a)(1) supports an interpretation that mixed-offense inmates are entitled to early parole consideration, such an interpretation would lead to absurd results the voters did not intend. Accordingly, we conclude that a person convicted of a violent felony offense and sentenced to state prison is ineligible for early parole consideration under section 32(a)(1).
We will deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus.
BACKGROUND
Douglas was convicted in Sacramento County Superior Court of three crimes: a criminal threat (
After the trial court imposed judgment and sentencing, Douglas appealed, and this court modified the judgment and remanded for resentencing.
Douglas engaged CDCR‘s administrative process, asserting he is eligible for early parole consideration under section 32(a)(1). CDCR determined that Douglas is not eligible for early parole consideration under section 32(a)(1) because he is a violent offender. Douglas filed petitions for writs of habeas corpus in Marin County Superior Court, which denied the petition, and in the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, which denied the petition without prejudice to filing a new petition for writ of habeas corpus in this court, citing authority that the proper venue for filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus with respect to denial of or suitability for parole is where judgment and sentence were imposed. (See In re Roberts (2005) 36 Cal.4th 575, 593.)
Douglas filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this court and we issued an order to show case.
DISCUSSION
A
“The general principles that govern interpretation of a statute enacted by the Legislature apply also to an initiative measure enacted by the voters. [Citation.] Thus, our primary task here is to ascertain the intent of the electorate [citation] so as to effectuate that intent [citation].
“We look first to the words of the initiative measure, as they generally provide the most reliable indicator of the voters’ intent. [Citations.] Usually, there is no need to construe a provision‘s words when they are clear and unambiguous and thus not reasonably susceptible of more than one meaning. [Citations.] ...
“A literal construction of an enactment, however, will not control when such a construction would frustrate the manifest purpose of the enactment as a whole. [Citations.] ‘The intent prevails over the letter, and the letter will, if possible, be so read as to conform to the spirit of the act.’
“Courts may, of course, disregard even plain language which leads to absurd results or contravenes clear evidence of a contrary [voter] intent. [Citation.]” (Ornelas v. Randolph (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1095, 1105, bracketed text added.) Whether a result is absurd, however, depends in large part on what the voters intended. (See also In re J. W. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 200, 210 [courts will not give language a literal meaning if doing so would result in absurd consequences that could not have been intended].)
B
Consistent with the foregoing rules of initiative interpretation, we begin our analysis with the relevant initiative language. The words of section 32(a)(1), considered in isolation, support a conclusion that an inmate is eligible for early parole consideration if the inmate was convicted of a nonviolent offense, even if the term for that nonviolent offense was not designated as the primary offense, and even if the inmate was also convicted of one or more violent offenses. Section 32(a)(1) merely says that “[a]ny person convicted of a nonviolent offense and sentenced to state prison shall be eligible for parole consideration after completing the full term of his or her primary offense.” The words “primary offense” are defined as “the longest term of imprisonment imposed by the court for any offense, excluding the imposition of an enhancement, consecutive sentence, or alternative sentence.” (
Because the words of section 32(a)(1) support a conclusion that an inmate is eligible for early parole consideration after completing his or her primary offense if the inmate was convicted of a nonviolent offense, even if the term for that nonviolent offense was not designated as the primary offense, and even if the inmate was also convicted of one or more violent offenses, we must interpret it that way unless to do so would lead to absurd results the voters did not intend. As we explain in the remainder of this opinion, such an interpretation would in fact lead to absurd results the voters did not intend.
Here is but one example of an absurd result. The literal language of section 32(a)(1) suggests that an inmate convicted of 10 violent felonies and one nonviolent felony would be eligible for early parole consideration after serving the full term of his or her primary offense, whatever that primary offense might be. But an inmate convicted of the same 10 violent felonies without a nonviolent felony conviction would be ineligible for early parole consideration under section 32(a)(1). Such a result would encourage and reward a violent felon‘s commission of at least one additional nonviolent felony, would be inconsistent with sound public policy, and would make no sense.
In this regard, we disagree with the approach in Mohammad, supra, 42 Cal.App.5th 719. In that case, the inmate was convicted of nine violent felonies (all robberies) and six nonviolent felonies (all receiving stolen property). In sentencing the inmate, the trial court chose one of the nonviolent felonies as the principal sentencing term (three years) and ordered that the remaining terms run consecutively, for an aggregate sentence of 29 years. (Id. at pp. 722-724.) Applying the text of section 32(a)(1), the Court of Appeal determined the inmate was eligible for early parole consideration after completing the three-year term on the primary offense (receiving stolen property). (Mohammad, at pp. 725-726.) The court declined to consider voter intent (id. at p. 727) and refused to conclude its interpretation would lead to absurd results, explaining: “The Constitution‘s text compels the result we reach, and we are not prepared to declare that result so absurd [citation] as to disregard the Constitution‘s plain meaning . . . .” (Id. at p. 728.)
We disagree with the holding in Mohammad because the court did not test the initiative language for absurd results the voters did not intend. If the text of the constitutional provision is the measure of whether a result is absurd, then no result based on the text could be absurd, completely negating the benefit of determining whether a literal interpretation of a provision would be contrary to the voters’ intent.
But as we have indicated, whether a literal interpretation of a constitutional provision leads to absurd results is based in large part on whether the voters intended the result. To determine whether the voters intended a result, we may consider the normal indicia of the voters’ intent beyond the text of the provision. “[W]e consider the analysis and arguments contained in the official election materials submitted to the voters. [Citations.]” (Arias, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 979.)
Next, we consider the proponents’ argument in support of Proposition 57. The argument began: “California public safety leaders and victims of crime support Proposition 57 -- the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016 -- because Prop. 57 focuses resources on keeping dangerous criminals behind bars, while rehabilitating juvenile and adult inmates and saving tens of millions of taxpayer dollars.” (Ballot Pamp., Gen. Elec. (Nov. 8, 2016) argument in favor of Prop. 57, p. 58.) This language suggests at least a partial intent to keep dangerous criminals behind bars, a concept reinforced in the proponents’ rebuttal to the argument against Proposition 57. The rebuttal asserted that mixed-offense inmates would not be eligible for early parole consideration under section 32(a)(1), stating that Proposition 57 “[d]oes NOT authorize parole for violent offenders.” (Ballot Pamp., Gen. Elec. (Nov. 8, 2016) rebuttal to argument against Prop. 57, p. 59.) The rebuttal further asserted: “Violent criminals as defined in
To alleviate any doubt about absurd results based on voter intent, imagine if the proponents had instead argued to the voters that under Proposition 57, violent criminals would be eligible for early parole consideration regardless of how many violent crimes they committed, so long as they also committed at least one additional nonviolent offense. The proponents did not make such an argument to the voters, and for good reason.
Indeed, nothing in the election materials, other than the language of section 32(a)(1), evinces an intent on the part of the voters to extend early parole consideration to persons convicted of violent felony offenses. To the contrary, Proposition 57 was presented to the voters as excluding violent offenders from early parole consideration.
Douglas suggests that if section 32(a)(1) were interpreted to apply only to an inmate whose primary offense was a nonviolent felony, it would not lead to absurd results. He claims there is “nothing unreasonable in the electorate‘s focus on the nonviolent nature of a prisoner‘s primary offense in
As the court correctly recognized in Mohammad, affording a person eligibility for early parole consideration does not necessarily mean that the person will be released early on parole. (Mohammad, supra, 42 Cal.App.5th at 728-729.) Additional measures to protect the public would remain in place. Even with such measures, however, we are convinced that a literal interpretation of section 32(a)(1) would lead to absurd results the voters did not intend. Accordingly, we conclude that a person convicted of a violent felony offense and sentenced to state prison is ineligible for early parole consideration under section 32(a)(1).
DISPOSITION
The petition is denied.
/S/
MAURO, J.
I concur:
/S/
RENNER, J.
ROBIE, Acting P. J., Concurring.
I agree with the majority that petitioner is not entitled to relief under
I believe the majority‘s heavy reliance on the proponent‘s argument and rebuttal to determine voter intent is misplaced. (See In re Gadlin (2020) 10 Cal.5th 915, 940-941 [“The voters were explicitly warned in the margins of the voter guide that ‘Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors, and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency’ “].) Indeed, the other analyses contained in the Voter Information Guide show that the voter‘s intent is not at all clear. The Attorney General‘s analysis merely used the language in the proposed initiative and provides no support for the conclusion that inmates convicted of a violent felony are categorically excluded from early parole consideration under section 32(a)(1). The Legislative Analyst broadly discussed criminal sentencing, generally summarized the language in the proposed initiative, and explained the general impact of the initiative. As to the latter, the Legislative Analyst estimated the number of inmates who would be affected by the initiative and stated those inmates would likely serve a year and one-half in prison, instead of the two years served under current law. While this information could hypothetically support the majority‘s position, the analysis provided no context for the numbers used and failed to disclose or describe the types of sentences at issue. In short, nothing in the Voter Information Guide gives definitive guidance on the issue before this court today.
It is clear section 32(a)(1) is ambiguous given the divergence of appellate opinions as to its meaning; and, the Voter Information Guide provides no answers. “Under these circumstances, lacking definitive guidance in the [initiative‘s] language or history, ‘our aim [must be] to provide . . . a construction [of the initiative] which is faithful to its language, which produces fair and reasonable results in a majority of cases, and which can be readily understood and applied by trial courts.’ ” (In re Reeves (2005) 35 Cal.4th 765, 771.) “[W]e presume the voters relied on the text of the measure” for resolution of any ambiguity in the initiative. (In re Gadlin, supra, 10 Cal.5th at p. 940.)
The plain meaning of “any offense” is “any” and thus a plain interpretation of the statute is that inmates who served the primary offense, whether that be for a violent or nonviolent felony offense, can apply for early parole consideration if the remaining offenses are nonviolent felony offenses. Nothing in the voter information materials, other than the proponent‘s argument and rebuttal, preclude this plain reading of the initiative. The present tense use of “convicted of” also supports the interpretation that a violent felony conviction for which an inmate already served his or her sentence as the primary offense does not preclude the inmate from receiving the benefit of section 32(a)(1) when his or her remaining sentence is for nonviolent felony offenses only.
The People assert “convicted of” in section 32(a)(1) means the offenses an inmate was convicted of at trial and carries with him or her while serving that inmate‘s sentence. Indeed, the People claim that because petitioner was convicted of a violent felony offense, he is a violent offender for the purposes of section 32(a)(1) and precluded from petitioning for nonviolent offender parole consideration.
Our Supreme Court‘s analysis and interpretation of
Section 2933.1(a) provides: “Notwithstanding any other law, any person who is convicted of a felony offense listed in subdivision (c) of
Our Supreme Court first considered how section 2933.1(a) applies in the context of an inmate serving consecutive sentences: “Under the Determinate Sentencing Act (
Thus, our Supreme Court acknowledged that a prisoner sentenced to a consecutive sentence, which included at least one violent felony offense, could earn only 15 percent worktime credit under section 2933.1(a) for the duration of that prisoner‘s sentence. Our Supreme Court, however, rejected this same conclusion for prisoners sentenced to concurrent sentences.
“The People‘s effort to apply the same logic to concurrent terms is not convincing. A court that decides to run terms consecutively must create a new, ‘aggregate term of imprisonment’ (
Our Supreme Court reasoned, “[t]he People‘s reading of section 2933.1(a) creates tension with the statutory language in this way: Because petitioner has already served the term for the violent offense that caused the section to apply, the statement that he ‘is convicted of a [violent] felony offense’ (ibid.) is true only as a matter of historical fact, i.e., he was once convicted of a violent offense. But we have already rejected, as contrary to the Legislature‘s probable intent, the argument that section 2933.1(a) treats a conviction for a violent offense as a continuing disability that restricts an offender‘s ability to earn worktime credits even after he has served his sentence for that offense. Except in this inapplicable sense, to say that petitioner at the present time ‘is convicted’ (ibid.) of a violent offense is not correct. Today, his conviction for the violent offense gives the Department [of Corrections and Rehabilitation] no claim to his physical custody; but for the time remaining on the separate, concurrent term for the nonviolent offense, he would be entitled to release. For the same reason, given the statute‘s ambiguity, the People‘s interpretation of section 2933.1(a) is not entirely fair (to petitioner or others in his situation) or reasonable.” (In re Reeves, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 777.)3
Much like the statute in Reeves, section 32(a)(1) classifies inmates eligible under its provisions as those presently convicted of a certain type of offense and not as the class of offender they were upon conviction. Thus, like the statute taken up in Reeves, there is no indication the electorate intended for an inmate‘s violent felony conviction to constitute a continuing disability. (See In re Reeves, supra, 35 Cal.4th at pp.771-772.) Moreover, section 32(a)(1)(A)‘s definition of “primary offense” as “any offense, excluding the imposition of an enhancement, consecutive sentence, or alternative sentence” requires us to break an inmate‘s sentence into its component parts for the purpose of determining whether that inmate has served his or her primary offense, making the particular sequence in which an inmate serves his or her violent felony offense a meaningful abstraction.
/S/
Robie, Acting P. J.