People v. Hancock CA1/1

Filed 3/10/25 P. v. Hancock CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A169052 v. JOSEPH HANCOCK, (Alameda County Super. Ct. Nos. 22-CR-008594, Defendant and Appellant. 22-CR-008600, 22-CR-008850)

Joseph Hancock challenges a trial court order revoking his three-year term of parole and remanding him to the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). On appeal, Hancock accepts that there was sufficient evidence he violated parole, but he contends that the court should not have remanded him to CDCR’s custody under Penal Code1 section 3000.08, subdivision (h) (section 3000.08(h)), because this provision is inapplicable to parolees who are not serving lifetime parole. The trial court issued the order in response to this court’s suggestive Palma2 notice in a related writ proceeding, in which CDCR challenged the trial court’s original decision that section 3000.08(h) did not require Hancock’s

1All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171.

return to CDCR’s custody. Having reconsidered our ruling in the writ proceeding in light of subsequent case law, we conclude the trial court’s original decision was correct. Accordingly, we reverse the order committing Hancock to CDCR’s custody and remand the matter for the court to impose a proper remedy for his parole violation. BACKGROUND In 1999, a jury convicted Hancock of second degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced him to 39 years to life in prison with the possibility of parole. At the time of sentencing, Hancock would have been subject to lifetime parole under section 3000.1 if he were placed on parole. In 2020, the Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 118 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.), which implemented section 3000.01. (Stats. 2020, ch. 29, § 18.) The law applies to any person released from prison on or after July 1, 2020, and it governs the parole periods for those subject to supervision under section 3000.08. As relevant here, the law limits parole terms to three years for inmates serving an indeterminate sentence. (§ 3000.01, subd. (b).) In October 2020, Hancock was released on parole for a term of three years. In 2022, while on parole, he allegedly committed sex crimes involving a child under the age of 14 years. The district attorney brought charges and petitioned to revoke Hancock’s parole. Both the complaint and petition charged Hancock with two counts of committing a lewd act upon a child. (§ 288, subds. (a), (c)(1).) The criminal complaint also alleged he engaged in substantial sexual conduct with a child under 14 years of age (§§ 288, 288.5, 1203.066, subd. (a)(8)) and had two prior felony convictions (§ 1170, subd. (b)), as well as various aggravating factors under California Rules of Court, rule 4.421.