People v. V.A. CA1/2

Filed 11/19/24 P. v. V.A. CA1/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A169970 v. V.A., (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 012400287) Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant V.A. appeals after the trial court remanded him to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) following a hearing at which the court found probable cause that a parole violation occurred, but without ever holding a final parole violation hearing. Appellant now moves for summary reversal. We asked for supplemental briefing and held oral argument. The parties now agree that appellant should not have been remanded to prison after the determination of probable cause but before the final parole violation hearing. We also agree, and we grant the motion for summary reversal. Accordingly, the trial court’s order of February 7, 2024, remanding appellant to the CDCR is reversed, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings on the petition for parole revocation. 1

BACKGROUND In May 2013, appellant pleaded guilty to one count of lewd or lascivious conduct upon a child under the age of 14 years by use of force (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1)) and two counts of inducing a minor to use a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11353), and he was sentenced to 17 years in prison. On December 23, 2023, appellant was released on parole. On January 30, 2024, the Division of Adult Parole Operations filed a petition for revocation (citing Pen. Code, §§ 3000.08, 1203.2) alleging appellant had not registered as a sex offender. A probable cause hearing on the petition was held on February 7, 2024. At the outset, the deputy district attorney stated, “I think we’re not in the complete end of our investigation,” and “I think there is a technical violation, but there’s other extenuating circumstances.” The trial court responded that it had “no options,” and, “The only thing the Court can do is hold a probable cause hearing. If there is a [sic] probable cause, then he is remanded to the Department of Corrections for a[n] actual parole hearing.” The trial court was unequivocal that the hearing it was about to conduct was “not a parole violation hearing” and stated, “It’s not where the DA has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that parole was violated. It’s just whether there’s some basis to hold him in custody for the actual hearing.” (Italics added.) The prosecution called a parole agent to testify, and appellant testified on his own behalf.1