In re Ignacio CA2/5

Filed 12/23/25 In re Ignacio CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

In re B346675

ERIC RUBIO IGNACIO (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. on Habeas Corpus. 25CJHC00054-01 & KA0400038-01)

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of habeas corpus. William C. Ryan and Robert M. Kawahara, Judges. Petition granted. Jennifer Peabody, Executive Director and Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Petitioner. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Heidi Salerno, Deputy Attorneys General for Respondent.

Petitioner Eric Rubio Ignacio was convicted of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a))1 in 1998. Gang and firearm enhancements (§§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1), 12022, subd. (a)(1)) were found true, and he was sentenced to 16 years to life in prison. He was granted parole by the Board of Parole Hearings on August 12, 2022, and released from prison on January 18, 2023. While on parole, petitioner tested positive for methamphetamine multiple times. On March 29, 2023, the People petitioned to revoke petitioner’s parole. After petitioner admitted to parole violations, the superior court revoked petitioner’s parole and remanded him to the custody of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) pursuant to section 3000.08, subdivision (h). In May 2025, petitioner filed a habeas petition in the superior court, alleging he should not have been remanded to state prison under section 3000.08, subdivision (h), but instead confined to county jail for no more than 180 days pursuant to section 3000.08, subdivisions (f) and (g). After the superior court denied the petition on May 14, 2025, petitioner sought habeas relief in this court. In a return to our order to show cause why relief should not be granted, the People conceded the superior court erred in remanding petitioner to the custody of the CDCR. The People ask us to remand the matter to the superior court for further proceedings to determine what penalties to impose under section 3000.08, subdivisions (f) and (g). We agree and now grant the petition.