Pope v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Jul 17, 1970 No. Civ. 28197Published

Before: Draper

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a parolee has no right to counsel or confrontation of witnesses at a parole revocation hearing, and that the superior court's role is limited to reviewing the record for evidence of caprice rather than conducting an evidentiary hearing. Consequently, the court lacked authority to transfer the habeas corpus proceeding to another county.

Issues

Does a parolee have a right to counsel and confrontation of witnesses at a parole revocation hearing?
Is a superior court authorized to conduct an evidentiary hearing or transfer a habeas corpus proceeding challenging parole revocation to another county?

Disposition. Peremptory writ of prohibition and mandate issued.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Beasley’s assertion of his right to counsel at the revocation hearing is without merit”

“we hold that the function of a court, in such a case, is to review the record upon which the Adult Authority revoked parole.”

“Since no evidentiary hearing is required, the transfer of the case from the Superior Court of Solano County to that of Riverside County necessarily falls.”

Opinion

DRAPER, P. J.

Convicted on two counts of possession of narcotics for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11500.5) and one count of possession of narcotics (Health & Saf. Code, § 11500) Samuel B. Beasley commenced his prison term January 12, 1965. Paroled May 21, 1968, he was arrested by Riverside police May 19, 1969 on a charge of attempted murder. Report of parole agent and police reports show that two residents saw a man stabbing a woman in front of their home. They called police. The stabber fled in an identified vehicle which was located by police shortly thereafter, a few blocks from the scene of the stabbing. Beasley, the sole occupant of the car, was not immediately visible, but was found lying on the floorboard. A blood-stained knife was found in his pocket. Taken to the scene of the stabbing, he was identified by the victim and the two witnesses. He was arrested. On June 20, the charges were dismissed because the victim failed to appear at the preliminary examination. Beasley’s parole was suspended. He was returned to prison at Vacaville and charged with violation of parole “by committing an act of violence against Mary Beasley, alias Mary Walker.” At the hearing on revocation, he pleaded not guilty, stating that the woman’s “boy friend had the knife.” He was found guilty, and parole was revoked.

He applied to respondent court for habeas corpus. His application did not in any way deny the assault which was the basis of revocation. He argued only that he was denied due process because he did not have counsel or the

[647]

right to confront witnesses against him at the revocation hearing. Nonetheless, the court found that Beasley “has established a prima facie case that parole was revoked without cause.” It ruled that the case “be transferred” to the Superior Court, Riverside County, “where the witnesses, if any, are, for an evidentiary hearing.”

Beasley’s assertion of his right to counsel at the revocation hearing is without merit

(In re Schoengarth,

66 Cal.2d 295, 304 [57 Cal.Rptr. 600, 425 P.2d 200]). No federal due process question is raised by the authority’s revision of its wholly tentative reduction of the maximum sentence

Pope v. Superior Court

AI Brief

DRAPER, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief