In re Banks

11/27/23 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

C098247 In re ARLONZO J. BANKS on Habeas Corpus. (Super. Ct. No. 22HC00126)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, Allison Williams, Judge. Affirmed.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Sara J. Romano, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Malone, Van Kamberian, Deputy Attorneys General, for Appellant.

Sharon Wrubel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Respondent.

Someone mailed inmate/respondent Arlonzo J. Banks two large manila envelopes with the controlled substance Suboxone hidden inside. A correctional sergeant intercepted the envelopes in the prison mailroom, and inmate Banks was issued a rules violation report charging him with conspiracy to introduce a controlled substance into prison for distribution or sale. During the investigation, inmate Banks tried to ask the sergeant who issued the rules violation report, “ ‘What, if any, evidence demonstrates I

1

agreed with another individual to introduce a controlled substance into the facility?’ ” The hearing officer deemed the question irrelevant. Inmate Banks’s question was spot on. The record contains no evidence of the first element of conspiracy, namely, the existence of an agreement between at least two persons. We therefore affirm the trial court’s grant of inmate Banks’s petition for writ of habeas corpus that vacated a guilty finding of conspiracy. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In July 2020, a correctional sergeant was processing mail in the prison mailroom and searched two large manila envelopes addressed to inmate Banks. That correctional sergeant found “numerous small orange squares glued underneath the bottom flap of both the manila envelopes” and gave the envelopes to another correctional sergeant, Sergeant Laguna, for further investigation. Sergeant Laguna removed the orange squares, took photographs of the envelopes, and sent the squares to a pharmacist, who determined they were strips of the controlled substance Suboxone. The envelopes were addressed using defendant’s CDCR number, two different cell block numbers, and the same return address, although the return addressee’s name was spelled differently on each envelope. The sergeant issued a rules violation report to inmate Banks, charging him with conspiring to introduce a controlled substance into prison for distribution or sale. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3016, subd. (d).) Inmate Banks directed the correctional officer who had been assigned as his investigative employee to ask Sergeant Laguna, “ ‘What, if any, evidence demonstrates I agreed with another individual to introduce a controlled substance into the facility?’ ” The senior hearing officer in charge of hearing the rules violation report deemed the question irrelevant. At the rules violation report hearing, inmate Banks pled not guilty and said, “I don’t know nothing about this. If I did this I would say so. I always have. I don’t know that person. And look, the names are spelled different. It wasn’t mine.” As additional