People v. McCard CA2/1

Filed 10/29/20 P. v. McCard CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B302011

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 9PH04469) v.

ERIC STEVE MCCARD,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Keith H. Borjon, Judge, and Robert M. Kawahara, Commissioner. Appeal dismissed. Heather E. Shallenberger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Michael C. Keller and Charles J. Sarosy, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _______________________________

Eric Steve McCard appeals from an October 16, 2019 order entered after the trial court revoked his parole for absconding, and ordered him to serve 170 days in jail, followed by a reinstatement of parole supervision upon his release from jail. In his opening appellate brief, McCard contends the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked his parole supervision without referring the district attorney’s petition for revocation of his parole to the parole office for a written report, as required under Penal Code section 1203.2, subdivision (b)(1).1 He also contends the disproportionate application of the statutes governing parole revocation petitions, depending on whether a petition is filed by a district attorney or a parole agency, violates his constitutional right to equal protection of the law. In support of his equal protection claim, he asserts he was sanctioned more harshly because the petition was filed by the district attorney (170 days in jail) than he would have been if the petition had been filed by the parole agency, as the parole agency determined the appropriate sanction for his violation was continuation on parole and drug treatment. In the respondent’s brief, the Attorney General argues, among other things: (1) McCard’s appeal is moot because he already served the 170-day jail term the trial court imposed; and (2) McCard forfeited his equal protection contention by failing to raise it below.