People v. Vonwahlde, F069946

• Decision Date: 05 October 2016
• Docket Number: F069946
• Citation: 220 Cal.Rptr.3d 337,3 Cal.App.5th 1187
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Darrell Keith VONWAHLDE, Defendant and Respondent.

3 Cal.App.5th 1187

220 Cal.Rptr.3d 337

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.Darrell Keith VONWAHLDE, Defendant and Respondent.

F069946

Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California.

Filed October 5, 2016

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Catherine Chatman, George M. Hendrickson, and Larenda R. Delaini, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Michael Satris, Bolinas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent

OPINION

DETJEN, J.

A defendant is on parole in one case when he or she is sentenced to prison in another case. Does the trial court have authority to terminate parole in the first case? We hold it does not. We further hold the People can appeal an order purporting to do so.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 4, 2010, Darrell Keith VonWahlde (defendant) was convicted in Fresno County Superior Court case No. F09906698 (hereafter the original case) of assault with a deadly weapon ( Pen. Code,¹ § 245, subd. (a)(1) ), apparently under circumstances involving domestic violence.² He was released on parole on October 31, 2013, with supervision scheduled to expire on October 31, 2016. On February 25, 2014, defendant reported to his parole officer with a misdemeanor minute order indicating he was on parole. He was directed to obtain his felony minute order, and return for processing. He failed to return. A warrant was issued for his arrest and, on May 28, 2014, he was "arrested and booked."

On June 26, 2014, a petition for revocation of parole was filed in Fresno County Superior Court case No. P14900105 (hereafter the parole revocation case), alleging defendant violated the conditions of his parole by absconding from parole supervision. The court found probable cause to support revocation and preliminarily revoked supervision. The parole revocation case was continued; defendant was facing new charges in Fresno County Superior Court case No. F14900323 (hereafter the new case).

On July 3, 2014, defendant entered into a plea agreement in the new case. He pled no contest to running a chop shop operation ( Veh. Code, § 10801 ) and admitted having a prior strike conviction and having served a prior prison term. The agreement provided for a stipulated term of five years to run concurrently with the parole revocation case. In exchange, count two and additional prison prior allegations in the new case, and another case in which charges were pending, would be dismissed. The court found defendant in violation, and ordered that defendant's parole remain revoked.

Sentencing in the new and parole revocation cases took place on August 4, 2014. Before sentence was imposed, the following occurred:

"THE COURT: Let me ask this ..., with regards to the matter for which he's on parole, is there any need to continue him on parole when it's been stipulated to a five-year term?

"[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Our request is that parole be terminated today. Or at the very least, give him credit for time served so that he can be transported as soon as possible to [prison], but he's going to be in custody.

"[PROSECUTOR]: We'd ask that Parole handle that matter.... I don't believe this Court has jurisdiction under ... [section] 1203.

"THE COURT: Well, I have a question about that.... What's to be gained by having him on parole while he's getting a five-year term in prison according to the stipulation of the parties? Secondly, because the matter's been submitted to the Court through the [L]egislature—through the Penal Code, why isn't this an action that can be dismissed according to 1385 of the Penal Code ?

"[PROSECUTOR]: I understand the Court's position.... But the Parole has indicated to me that they ... stand by the position that they want anyone who's still on parole to remain on parole, ... whether or not the person has incurred a new ... commitment or supervisory situation or if he's still on parole. I've also spoken to Presiding Judge Conklin, he's indicated to me that [p]arole is not to be terminated by judicials.

"THE COURT: That's all fine and well and we're all independent constitutional law officers and I understand his position is that maybe, but I'm just curious as to what's to be gained by having [defendant] on a grant of parole when he's going to be doing five years in prison? [¶] ... [¶]

"[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: ... [W]e stand by our request ... to terminate parole....

"THE COURT: Pursuant to 1385?

"[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes, and he's serving five years with limited time credits because of the prior strike."

The court proceeded to impose the stipulated five-year term in the new case. This ensued:

"[THE COURT:] With regards to the parole matter; the Court's thought and comments stand that it serves no good purpose to keep this gentleman on a grant of formal parole. Noting that the Penal Code itself seems to indicate that the Court has no ability to terminate parole, but also noting that the [L]egislature deems fit to submit these matters to the Court for the purposes of an action for consideration of parole status, revocation hearings, the Court would deem this to be an action pursuant to 1385 and would exercise its discretion under 1385 to terminate parole. He's to be afforded 180 days of custody credits in that matter. The reasons in the minutes are that he is receiving a five-year stipulated prison term in [the new] case ... and as such, in the interest of justice, parole is therefore terminated pursuant to 1385[, subdivision ](a) of the Penal Code."³

The People filed a timely notice of appeal pursuant to section 1238, subdivision (a)(5).

DISCUSSION

I APPEALABILITY

"The prosecution's right to appeal in a criminal case is strictly limited by statute. [Citation.]" ( People v. Chacon (2007) 40 Cal.4th 558, 564, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 876, 150 P.3d 755 ; accord, People v. Williams (2005) 35 Cal.4th 817, 822–823, 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 29, 110 P.3d 1239.) "The circumstances allowing a People's appeal are enumerated in section 1238." ( People v. Chacon , supra , 40 Cal.4th at p. 564, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 876, 150 P.3d 755.) " ‘ "[C]ourts are precluded from so interpreting section 1238 as to expand the People's right of appeal into areas other than those clearly specified by the Legislature." [Citation.]’ [Citation.]" ( In re Anthony (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 204, 211, 186 Cal.Rptr.3d 343.)

"Longstanding authority requires adherence to these limits even though ... ‘the People may thereby suffer a wrong without a remedy.’ [Citation.]" ( People v. Chacon , supra , 40 Cal.4th at p. 564, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 876, 150 P.3d 755.)

The People rely on subdivision (a)(5) of section 1238, which permits them to appeal from "[a]n order made after judgment, affecting the substantial rights of the people." Defendant contends the appeal in this case does not fall into this category, because (1) the parole termination order was made under a different case number than the original case in which judgment was pronounced, and (2) no substantial rights possessed by the People were affected by the court's order, since defendant's entire parole period would have run while defendant was serving his prison term in the new case.

The People's appeal is authorized by subdivision (a)(5) of section 1238. The Legislature has decreed that, generally speaking, "[a] sentence resulting in imprisonment in the state prison ... shall include a period of parole supervision or postrelease community supervision...." (§ 3000, subd. (a)(1).) Although "the period of parole is not part of a defendant's prison term" ( People v. Jefferson (1999) 21 Cal.4th 86, 95, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 893, 980 P.2d 441 ), "parole is a form of punishment accruing directly from the underlying conviction" ( People v. Nuckles (2013) 56 Cal.4th 601, 609, 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 374, 298 P.3d 867 ) and is "a direct and, pragmatically, an inexorable penal consequence" thereof ( In re Carabes (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 927, 930, 193 Cal.Rptr. 65 ). Since the parole period fastens to the prison sentence imposed in the underlying criminal case, a superior court's decision to assign parole revocation actions their own case numbers is not controlling. A trial court's order concerning revocation and/or termination of parole remains one "made after judgment." (§ 1238, subd. (a)(5).)

Moreover, substantial rights of the People are affected by an order terminating parole. The Legislature has found and declared "that the period immediately following incarceration is critical to successful reintegration of the offender into society and to positive citizenship. It is in the interest of public safety for the state to provide for the effective supervision of and surveillance of parolees, including the judicious use of revocation actions...." (§ 3000, subd. (a)(1).) "[T]he prosecutor's role [is] as representative of the People as a body.... ‘The prosecutor speaks ... for all the People.’ " ( People v. Eubanks (1996) 14 Cal.4th 580, 589, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 200, 927 P.2d 310 ; accord, People v. Seumanu (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1293, 1345, 192 Cal.Rptr.3d 195, 355 P.3d 384.) Accordingly, the prosecution has a considerable interest in the protection of public safety and prevention of recidivism. (See People v. Cruz (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 664, 679, 143 Cal.Rptr.3d 742 ; People v. Beebe (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 927, 934, 265 Cal.Rptr. 242.)

" ‘[I]n order to affect the People's substantial rights an order "must in some way affect the judgment or its enforcement or hamper the further prosecution of the particular proceeding in which it is made." ’ [Citations.]" ( People v. Leonard (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1297, 1300, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 57.) It is not enough for the order merely to relate to a collateral matter. (Ibid .)

Where a sentence in a criminal case is required to include a period of parole, an order cutting that period short is not merely collateral to the underlying criminal case, but rather directly affects the judgment. (See In re Carabes , supra , 144 Cal.App.3d at pp. 931–932, 193 Cal.Rptr....