California Court of Appeal Nov 14, 2014 No. D064633MPublished
Filed 11/14/14 unmodified opinion attached
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
COURT OF APPEAL - FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
LAVINA CAROL WOFFORD, D064633
Petitioner, (San Diego County Super. Ct. No. SCD233212) v. ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DENYING PETITION FOR DIEGO COUNTY, REHEARING
Respondent; [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]
THE PEOPLE,
Real Party in Interest.
THE COURT:
The Attorney General's petition for rehearing filed November 5, 2014, is
DENIED.
The opinion filed on October 22, 2014 is MODIFIED as follows:
1. On page 13, the statutory citation immediately preceding Discussion part III.
shall be deleted and replaced with:
(§ 1170, subd. (h)(5)(B)(i), italics added.)
2. On page 13, footnote 8 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following
footnote 8:
8Section 1170, subdivision (h)(5) states: "The court, when imposing a
sentence pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of this subdivision, may commit the defendant
to county jail as follows: [¶] (A) For a full term in custody as determined in accordance
with the applicable sentencing law. [¶] (B)(i) For a term as determined in accordance
3. On page 19, following the sentence ending "to be served in the community,"
the statutory citation shall be deleted and replaced with the following:
(§ 1170, subd. (h)(5)(B)(i).)
There is no change in the judgment.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
Copies to: All parties
3
Filed 10/22/14 unmodified version
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
COURT OF APPEAL - FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
LAVINA CAROL WOFFORD, D064633
Petitioner, (San Diego County Super. Ct. No. SCD233212) v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY,
Respondent;
THE PEOPLE,
Real Party in Interest.
Proceedings in mandate after superior court denied released offender's motion for
permission to apply for transfer of supervision to another state. Desiree A. Bruce-Lyle,
Judge. Petition granted.
Robert Booher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Petitioner.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General,
Charles C. Ragland, Collette C. Cavalier and Amanda E. Casillas, Deputy Attorneys
General, for Respondent and Real Party in Interest.
After being convicted of drug-related offenses, Lavina Wofford was sentenced
under the Realignment Act1 to serve a portion of her prison sentence released into the
community under the mandatory supervision of the probation department. Among the
many conditions of her mandatory supervision, Wofford is required to obtain the superior
court's consent before moving to another state. Apart from mandatory supervision
requirements, a released offender who wants to transfer his or her supervision to another
state must also obtain the approval of the California office that administers out-of-state
transfer requests under the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision (the
Compact or Interstate Compact).
After she was released in the community under mandatory supervision, Wofford
filed a motion in superior court requesting that she be permitted to submit an application
to California's Interstate Compact office for a transfer of her supervision to another state.
The court denied her request to apply to the Compact office, in part based on its
conclusion that offenders serving mandatory supervision sentences are ineligible to apply
for transfers under the Compact.
We conclude the court erred in ruling mandatory supervision releasees serving
their sentences in the community under the Realignment Act are ineligible to apply for
1 Our references to the Realignment Act are to the 2011 Realignment Legislation addressing public safety (Stats. 2011, ch. 15, § 1) and subsequent related legislation. (See Historical and Statutory Notes, 47 West's Ann. Pen. Code (2014 ed.) foll. § 17.5, p. 90; People v. Cruz (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 664, 668.)
2
transfers under the Interstate Compact. Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of
mandate.
BACKGROUND
At proceedings in 2011 and 2012, Wofford was convicted of several drug-related
offenses, and the trial court sentenced her to an eight-year prison term, to be served
locally as a "split sentence" under the Realignment Act. Her sentence consisted of three
years served in jail and a five-year suspended sentence served while released into the
community under mandatory supervision by the probation department.2
Wofford's terms of mandatory supervision while released into the community
include the condition that she obtain the "court's and [probation officer's] written consent
before moving out of state." In August 2013, Wofford filed a motion requesting that she
be permitted to apply for a transfer of her supervision to Virginia through the Interstate
Compact. She contended she was eligible to apply for a transfer under the Compact
because (1) she was an offender under supervision as defined in the rules governing the
Compact, and (2) a transfer was permissible under California's Realignment Act and
consistent with its rehabilitative goals.
Wofford told the court she had been in compliance with her supervision terms for
six months; she has strong family and financial support in Virginia, whereas in California
she was struggling financially; Virginia (a Compact member) has a supervision protocol
similar to California's and will be required to supervise her for the length of time
2 We grant the Attorney General's unopposed request that we take judicial notice of the order granting Wofford mandatory supervision. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 459.) 3
established by California; and California retained the right to bring her back to the state.
Wofford submitted a letter from her daughter which described the stable, supportive
environment the daughter and her family could provide for Wofford in Virginia and
expressing the daughter's willingness to assist in Wofford's supervision plan.
The District Attorney opposed Wofford's request to apply for a transfer, arguing
that although mandatory supervision releasees could fall within the broad definitions of
"offender" and "supervision" set forth in the Compact rules, these rules also reflected that
not all such offenders were eligible. The District Attorney contended that mandatory
supervision releasees were not meant to be covered by the Compact because, unlike
probationers, they are inmates serving a prison term in the community. The District
Attorney also asserted that the Compact should not be applied to mandatory supervision
releasees because they are subject to specialized supervision mechanisms (including a
centralized review court, a comprehensive, personalized case plan, and specially-trained
probation officers), and, concerning this case, Virginia does not have supervision
comparable to this mandatory supervision. The District Attorney also argued the court
should deny Wofford's request because she had been on mandatory supervision for only
six months.
Both parties submitted e-mail correspondence from, and described phone
conversations with, personnel at California's Interstate Compact office concerning the
mandatory supervision eligibility issue. Each party claimed these e-mails and
conversations supported its position on the eligibility question.
4
At a hearing on September 19, 2013, the court denied Wofford's motion for
permission to apply for a transfer under the Compact. The court reasoned a defendant on
mandatory supervision is for "all intents and purposes" serving a prison term even though
the defendant is released in the community; a defendant who is an inmate does not
qualify for a Compact transfer; and accordingly mandatory supervision releasees were
not eligible for Compact transfers. The court also stated Wofford was doing well on
mandatory supervision but she had not been on mandatory supervision long enough to
determine whether her progress will be consistent, and there was a question as to whether
Virginia would supervise her in the same manner as she was being supervised in San
Diego.
In response to defense counsel's requests for clarification, the court stated its
ruling was without prejudice to Wofford's right to request reconsideration if she had
additional time on mandatory supervision with consistent positive results, and if the
court's findings on the other matters were also addressed.
Wofford filed an appeal challenging the court's ineligibility ruling. Although the
court's ruling was without prejudice to Wofford's right to file another transfer request, her
ability to purse a transfer request would be impeded absent a legal determination on the
Compact eligibility issue. Accordingly, to resolve this purely legal issue, we treated
Wofford's appeal as a petition for writ of mandate. (See Thornburg v. Superior Court
(2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 43, 48.) We note that Wofford is not challenging the court's
factual finding that a transfer application was not appropriate at this juncture, and we
express no view on this fact-based component of the court's order.
5
DISCUSSION
California is a member of the Interstate Compact through which member states
coordinate the out-of-state transfer and supervision of offenders who are released into the
community under the supervision of the authorities. The Compact contains detailed
provisions governing transfer requests by the offender, implementation of the transfers,
and supervision of the transferred offender.
The parties do not dispute that the Compact applies to offenders released into the
community on traditional parole or probation status. However, they disagree whether it
applies to the new class of released offenders who, under California's recent Realignment
Act, are serving a portion of their prison term released into the community under the
supervision of the probation department.
For reasons we shall explain, we conclude mandatory supervision releasees are
eligible to apply for transfers under the Compact.
I. The Interstate Compact
The Interstate Compact is an "agreement between member states that seeks to
promote public safety by systematically controlling the interstate movement of certain
Book for Judges and Court Personnel (2014 ed.).)5 Each member state has a
commissioner with voting rights on the Commission, and a compact administrator
responsible for the administration and management of the Compact in the state.
(§ 11180, arts. III, IV; Compact Rules, supra, Rule 1.101.)6
The current Compact, entitled the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender
Supervision, was preceded by a 1937 Compact entitled the Interstate Compact for the
Supervision of Parolees and Probationers. (See § 11180, Preamble.) The change in
terminology in the current Compact—which uses the broad term "offender"—was
"intended to correct perceived problems with the [predecessor Compact], which
4 Subsequent unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.
5 The Bench Book is available at <http://www.interstatecompact.org> as of October 22, 2014.
6 Subsequent numeric references to Rules are to the Compact Rules. 7
encouraged states to claim that certain individuals were exempt from coverage of the
agreement by use of the explicit language of 'probationers' and 'parolees,' terms that were
given a narrow definition and application." (Bench Book, supra, at pp. 51-52.)
Explaining its purpose, the Compact states: "The compacting states to this
Interstate Compact recognize that each state is responsible for the supervision of adult
offenders in the community who are authorized pursuant to the Bylaws and Rules of this
compact to travel across state lines both to and from each compacting state in a manner
so as to track the location of offenders, transfer supervision authority in an orderly and
efficient manner, and when necessary return offenders to the originating jurisdiction."
(§ 11180, art. I, Purpose, italics added.) Further, the Compact specifies that its purpose
is, among other things, "to provide for the effective tracking, supervision, and
rehabilitation of these offenders by the sending and receiving states." (Ibid., italics
added.)
The Compact's general eligibility requirements are derived from the definitions of
the terms "offender" and "supervision" set forth in the Compact Rules. Offender is
defined as "an adult placed under, or made subject to, supervision as the result of the
commission of a criminal offense and released to the community under the jurisdiction of
courts, paroling authorities, corrections, or other criminal justice agencies, and who is
required to request transfer of supervision under the provisions of the Interstate Compact
for Adult Offender Supervision." (Rule 1.101, italics added.) Supervision is defined as
"the oversight exercised by authorities of a sending or receiving state over an offender for
a period of time determined by a court or releasing authority, during which time the
8
offender is required to report to or be monitored by supervising authorities, and to
comply with regulations and conditions, other than monetary conditions, imposed on the
offender at the time of the offender's release to the community or during the period of
supervision in the community." (Ibid., italics added.)
The Compact Rules contain several provisions specifying various types of
offenders who are, or are not, eligible for transfer under the Compact. The Rules state
offenders subject to deferred sentences are eligible. (Rule 2.106.) The Rules list the
following types of offenders as ineligible: (1) a person "subject to supervision pursuant
to a pre-trial release program, bail, or similar program"; and (2) a person "who is
released from incarceration under furlough, work-release, or other pre-parole program."
(Rules 2.106, 2.107, italics added.)
Under the Rules, the sending state (the state sending the offender) has the
discretion to decide whether to request the transfer of an offender to another state. (Rules
2.101, 3.101; Bench Book, supra, at p. 54.) When a sending state makes a transfer
request, acceptance of the transfer by the receiving state (the state receiving the offender)
is mandatory if the offender (1) has more than 90 days or an indefinite period of
remaining supervision; (2) has a valid plan of supervision; (3) is in substantial
compliance with the terms of supervision; and (4) either (a) is a resident of the receiving
state, or (b) has family in the receiving state able to assist with the supervision, and can
obtain employment or has a means of support. (Rule 3.101.) If these criteria are not met,
the receiving state's acceptance of the transfer is discretionary. (Rule 3.101-2.)
9
To initiate the transfer process, the offender must obtain the approval of the
sending state's Interstate Compact office, and the sending state then sends the transfer
request to the receiving state. (Rule 2.101; Bench Book, supra, at pp. 54-55.) The
Compact Rules require that the sending state submit specified information to the
receiving state, including a description of the offense, the conditions of supervision, the
presentence-investigation report, any no-contact or sex offender registration orders, and
the supervision history. (Rule 3.107.) The length of supervision is determined by the
sending state, whereas the terms of supervision are determined by the receiving state.
(Rules 4.102, 4.101.)7 The sending state must inform the receiving state of any special
conditions applicable to the offender; the receiving state must notify the sending state if it
is unable to enforce a special condition imposed in the sending state; and the receiving
state may impose its own special conditions. (Rule 4.103.)
Annually or more frequently upon request, the receiving state must send progress
reports to the sending state, providing information about the offender's compliance with
the supervision conditions, participation in treatment programs, any sanctions imposed,
and the supervising officer's recommendation. (Rule 4.106.) The receiving state must
notify the sending state if there are significant supervision violations, and the sending
7 Rule 4.102 states: "A receiving state shall supervise an offender transferred under the interstate compact for a length of time determined by the sending state." Rule 4.101 states: "A receiving state shall supervise an offender transferred under the interstate compact in a manner determined by the receiving state and consistent with the supervision of other similar offenders sentenced in the receiving state." 10
state has the authority to order the return of the offender to the sending state without use
of extradition procedures. (Rules 3.109, 4.109, 5.101.)
II. California's Realignment Statutes
Entirely distinct from the Compact, California's penal system was substantially
revamped in 2011 with enactment of the Realignment Act, which shifted responsibility
for the custodial housing and postrelease supervision of certain felons from the state to
the local jails and probation departments. (People v. Cruz, supra, 207 Cal.App.4th at pp.
668, 671; § 1170, subd. (h).) In a statement of declarations and findings underlying the
Realignment Act, the Legislature stated it was committed to reducing recidivism;
California parolees have recidivism rates greater than the national average; and building
more prisons was not sustainable and would not result in improved public safety. (§ 17.5,
subd. (a)(1)-(3); Cruz, supra, at p. 669.) The Legislature stated that California must
support "community-based corrections programs and evidence-based practices that will
achieve improved public safety," and that realigning low-level felony offenders to
"locally run community-based corrections programs, which are strengthened through
subdivision (h), provides that the court shall "suspend execution" of the portion of the
term to be served under mandatory supervision in the community, and during the
mandatory supervision period the defendant shall be supervised by the probation
12
department "in accordance with the terms, conditions, and procedures generally
applicable to persons placed on probation . . . ." (§ 1170, subd. (h)(5)(A), (B), italics
added.)8
III. Analysis
When deciding whether offenders released into the community under mandatory
supervision are eligible to apply for out-of-state transfers under the Interstate Compact,
we apply well-established rules of statutory interpretation. We view the statutory
enactments as a whole; consider the plain, commonsense meaning of the language used
by the enactors; and seek to effectuate the legislative intent evinced by the enactments.
(People v. Fandinola (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1421.)
8 Section 1170, subdivision (h)(5) states: "(A) Unless the court finds that, in the interests of justice, it is not appropriate in a particular case, the court, when imposing a sentence . . . shall suspend execution of a concluding portion of the term for a period selected at the court's discretion. [¶] (B) The portion of a defendant's sentenced term that is suspended pursuant to this paragraph shall be known as mandatory supervision, and shall begin upon release from custody. During the period of mandatory supervision, the defendant shall be supervised by the county probation officer in accordance with the terms, conditions, and procedures generally applicable to persons placed on probation, for the remaining unserved portion of the sentence imposed by the court. The period of supervision shall be mandatory, and may not be earlier terminated except by court order. Any proceeding to revoke or modify mandatory supervision under this subparagraph shall be conducted pursuant to either subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 1203.2 or Section 1203.3 [addressing revocation or modification of probation and other release terms]. During the period when the defendant is under such supervision, unless in actual custody related to the sentence imposed by the court, the defendant shall be entitled to only actual time credit against the term of imprisonment imposed by the court. Any time period which is suspended because a person has absconded shall not be credited toward the period of supervision." (Italics added.)
13
Neither the Compact Rules nor California's Penal Code (including the
Realignment Act) contain any provisions expressly addressing whether mandatory
supervision releasees are eligible to apply for transfers under the Compact.9 However,
the language used in the Compact Rules readily suggests an intent to incorporate these
releasees into the Compact. Rule 1.101 broadly defines an offender as a person "released
to the community under the jurisdiction of . . . criminal justice agencies" and broadly
defines supervision as "the oversight exercised by authorities . . . determined by a court
or releasing authority." (Italics added.) Persons serving a prison term released in the
community under the probation department's supervision easily fall within these
expansive definitions of offenders under supervision set forth in the Compact Rules.
Likewise, the eligibility of mandatory supervision releasees is consistent with the
views expressed by the Commission in its judges' bench book, which states that offenders
need not be on "formal probation or parole status" to qualify for transfers, and explicitly
recognizes the eligibility of offenders on "release from incarceration with community-
based supervision . . . ." (Bench Book, supra, at p. 8, italics added.) Indeed, as noted,
when the 1937 predecessor compact was replaced with the current Compact, the broadly-
defined term "offender" was affirmatively selected in lieu of the more narrow terms
"probationer" and "parolee" to encourage a wider application of the Compact. (Id. at pp.
51-52.) As the Commission explained, the broad definition of offender allows it to
9 In contrast to out-of-state transfers, the California Legislature has addressed in- state transfers between counties, stating that mandatory supervision releasees, along with probationers, may apply to transfer their supervision or probation to another county. (§ 1203.9.) 14
"regulate the full breadth of adult offenders," including those "subject to deferred
execution of sentence if some form of community supervision and/or reporting is a
condition of the court's order," and those subject to "other 'non-standard' forms of
disposition as determined by the Commission if some form of community supervision
and/or reporting is a condition of the court's order." (Ibid., italics added.)
Advisory opinions issued by the Commission also reflect an intent to encompass a
broad array of offenders released under supervision in the community. In these opinions,
the Commission has repeatedly emphasized that "individual states' statutory schemes can
vary remarkably across the nation" and an offender's eligibility should not be based on
"the label used by" a particular state legislature, but rather should be based on "the action
actually taken by . . . the court." (Advisory Opn. 6-2005, p. 3, italics added; Advisory
Opn. 4-2004, p. 3.) For example, the Commission has explained that an offender
released on a deferred sentence is eligible under the Compact because the "offender is no
longer in a pretrial, presumed innocent status, but has [been] found to have committed
the charged offense notwithstanding the decision of the court to withhold punitive
sentencing in favor of an alternative program of corrections such as deferment,
probation in lieu of sentencing, suspended imposition of sentence or suspended execution
of sentence." (Advisory Opn. 4-2004, pp. 2-3, italics added; see Advisory Opn. 6-2005,
pp. 2-3 [state's deferred prosecution equates with deferred sentence because offender
stipulates to guilt in the event he or she fails to comply with release conditions]; Advisory
Opn. 1-2009 [even though rules of predecessor compact referred to prerelease transfer
requests from a "paroling offender," the provisions governing prerelease transfer requests
15
applied equally to Massachusetts offenders sentenced to "split" jail or prison sentences
who would be released to probation supervision].)
It is apparent that regardless of the particular sentencing structure utilized by a
state, the essential factors that bring an offender within the parameters of the Compact are
(1) an adjudication of guilt, and (2) release from custodial status into the community
under supervision. Persons released into the community on mandatory supervision under
California's Realignment Act fit these requirements.
To support its contrary position, the Attorney General points to the Compact Rule
excluding from eligibility offenders who are "released from incarceration under furlough,
work-release, or other pre-parole program." (Rule 2.107). Typically, these types of
offenders remain in confinement when they are not working, or are required to report to
designated work programs which effectively impose a type of confinement. (See § 1208,
subd. (d)(1) ["Whenever the prisoner is not employed . . . and between the hours or
periods of employment . . . , the prisoner shall be confined in the facility designated by
the board of supervisors for work furlough confinement unless the work furlough
administrator directs otherwise."]; § 4024.2, subd. (c) ["As a condition of participating in
a work release program, a person shall give his or her promise to appear for work . . . by
signing a notice to appear . . . and . . . an agreement that the sheriff may immediately
retake the person into custody . . . if the person fails to appear . . . .]; People v. Bojorquez
(2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 407, 422 [work release program has attributes of confinement].)
Thus, these offenders are released under programs that can retain a significant custodial
arrangement. The exclusion of offenders who are confined to work programs does not
16
suggest an intent to exclude offenders who are released under other programs, such as
mandatory supervision, that focus on supervision rather than confinement. (See Bench
Book, supra, at p. 58 [the Compact "has application in a broad range of cases and
dispositions beyond traditional conviction followed by probation"; key consideration is
whether "the end consequence of the court's action [was] community supervision"].)
Turning to California's Realignment Act, there are no provisions prohibiting
application of the Compact to mandatory supervision releasees, and there is nothing in
the Realignment Act suggesting that the Legislature intended to exclude mandatory
supervision releasees from Compact eligibility. The community-based punishment
concept described in the Realignment Act focuses on keeping the offender in the local
community under supervision, but it does not mandate that the community affording this
support and supervision must necessarily be a California community. Also, the
discretionary availability of a transfer to another state could well serve the goals of the
Realignment Act. As one court observed, "[i]t is apparent . . . that the overall purpose of
the [Realignment] Act is to reduce recidivism and improve public safety, while at the
same time reducing corrections and related criminal justice spending." (People v. Cruz,
supra, 207 Cal.App.4th at p. 679.) If an offender released on mandatory supervision
shows that he or she has a better chance of avoiding recidivism in another state, it would
advance the goals of the Realignment Act if the offender could seek transfer under the
Compact.
Further, the fact that approval of a supervised offender's request for out-of-state
transfer is fully within the discretion of the relevant California authorities ensures that the
17
goals of the Realignment Act will not be undermined by application of the Compact to
mandatory supervision releasees. First, based on the mandatory supervision condition
requiring court and probation officer consent to an out-of-state move, the superior court
serves as a gatekeeper with discretion to decline permission to pursue a transfer request
with the Compact office. Thus, Compact eligibility does not lessen the trial court's
discretionary power to keep an offender within the state because without the court's
approval there can be no transfer. Second, the Compact office can decline the transfer
request even if the court and probation officer consented.10 Thus, if there is a concern
that an offender released on mandatory supervision might not receive the appropriate
level or type of supervision in the other state, California has full authority to keep the
offender within its borders. Also, if a transferred offender does not perform well in the
receiving state, the Compact Rules allow the offender to be returned to California.
We are not persuaded by the Attorney General's argument that the Compact does
not apply to mandatory supervision releasees because they are not parolees or
probationers, but rather inmates who are serving their prison terms in the community.
(See, e.g., People v. Fandinola, supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at p. 1422 [probation supervision
fee may not be imposed on mandatory supervision releasee because the sentence is "akin
10 We note that, apart from an offender's mandatory supervision conditions, the Commission also requires that the offender's supervising agent (i.e., probation officer) first decide if the transfer plan is viable, and if the decision is no, the application is not submitted to the Compact office. (See Compact Flow Chart, Overview of the Interstate Compact Process, available at <http://www.interstatecompact.org/About/NavigatingTheCompact.aspx.> as of October 22, 2014. 18
to a state prison commitment; it is not a grant of probation or a conditional sentence"].)
As we indicated, the Commission has made clear that the fact that an offender is not a
traditional parolee or probationer is not determinative of eligibility; rather, the key
components of eligibility are (1) adjudicated guilt, and (2) release from custodial status
into the community under supervision. Regardless of the label placed on the sentence
being served by the mandatory supervision releasee, these eligibility components are
satisfied. As to the intent of the California Legislature, the Realignment Act directs that
the court suspend execution of the portion of the sentence to be served in the community.
(§ 1170, subd. (h)(5)(A).) The Legislature's reference to a suspended sentence reflects its
recognition that there is a qualitative difference between an inmate in actual prison
custody and a felon released in the community under mandatory supervision. Although a
mandatory supervision sentence may be treated as akin to an actual prison term for some
purposes, for purposes of Compact eligibility it meets the core requirement of
noncustodial release into the community under supervision.
Finally, we reject the Attorney General's contentions that Wofford has no standing
to present, or has forfeited, her challenge to the court's lack-of-eligibility ruling. She has
standing because she is aggrieved by the court's ruling that she was not eligible to request
a transfer (see In re L. Y. L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 948), and there was no
forfeiture because she raised the issue of eligibility before the trial court (see In re S.C.
(2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 406). The federal cases cited by the Attorney General to
support its claim of no standing are inapposite because they merely hold an offender
cannot bring a federal cause of action alleging a state's violation of the Compact. (M.F.
19
v. State of New York Executive Dept. Div. of Parole (2d Cir. 2011) 640 F.3d 491, 494-497
[challenge to conditions imposed by receiving state is matter that is traditionally relegated
to state law]; Doe v. Pennsylvania (3d Cir. 2008) 513 F.3d 95, 103-105.) Wofford is
requesting a legal evaluation of Compact eligibility, which is a proper matter for state or
federal court determination. (See M.F., supra, 640 F.3d at pp. 493-494; Commonwealth
v. Blaxton (Va. 2012) 722 S.E.2d 247, 248-249; Hubble v. Bi-State Development Agency
unavailing is the Attorney General's claim of forfeiture based on Wofford's failure to
challenge the mandatory supervision condition requiring that she obtain consent from the
court and probation officer to move out of state. Wofford's acceptance of this condition
did not mean she was waiving her right to request a transfer under the Compact; rather,
she merely agreed she would obtain permission from the court and probation officer
before moving, which thus required her to seek court approval before pursuing a transfer
under the Compact.
Given the broad applicability of the Compact to offenders released on supervision,
and the Realignment Act's goal of recidivism reduction that can be served by out-of-state
transfer, we conclude an offender released into the community to serve a mandatory
supervision sentence under the Realignment Act is eligible to apply for a transfer under
the Compact.
In the event we reach this conclusion, the Attorney General agrees that Wofford is
entitled to another hearing on whether she should be permitted to submit a transfer
application under the Compact. We emphasize that our holding is a narrow one, confined
20
to the legal issue of Compact eligibility for mandatory supervision releasees. We express
no opinion on the factual question of whether the trial court should issue a ruling in favor
of allowing Wofford to submit a Compact transfer application.
DISPOSITION
Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing the superior court to correct its
September 19, 2013 order to the extent the court ruled mandatory supervision releasees
are ineligible to apply for transfers under the Compact.
HALLER, J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
AARON, J.
21
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. Mandatory supervision releasees under California's Realignment Act are eligible to apply for out-of-state transfers under the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision.
Issues
Whether offenders serving mandatory supervision under the Realignment Act are eligible to apply for transfers under the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision.
Disposition. granted
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We conclude mandatory supervision releasees are eligible to apply for transfers under the Compact.”