Pope v. Superior Court

• Decision Date: 17 July 1970
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Lester J. POPE, Superintendent, California Medical Facility at Vacaville, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SOLANDO COUNTY, Respondent; Samuel B. BEASLEY, Real Party in Interest. Civ. 28197.

Page 488

88 Cal.Rptr. 488

9 Cal.App.3d 644

Lester J. POPE, Superintendent, California Medical Facility at Vacaville, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SOLANDO COUNTY, Respondent;

Samuel B. BEASLEY, Real Party in Interest.

Civ. 28197.

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 3, California.

July 17, 1970.

Hearing Denied Oct. 1, 1970.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., of the State of California, Derald E. Granberg, Gloria F. DeHart, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, for petitioner.

Paul Ligda, Public Defender, County of Solano, William D. Hubbard, Jr., Deputy Public Defender, Fairfield, for real party in interest.

Garry, Dreyfus, McTernam & Brotsky, Benjamin Dreyfus, San Francisco, amici curiae.

DRAPER, Presiding Justice.

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 He was found guilty, and parole was revoked.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 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 (In re McLain, 55 Cal.2d 78, 85, 9 Cal.Rptr. 824, 357 P.2d 1080). Hence the claimed right to confrontation also fails.

The trial court's attempted analogy to revocation of probation is unsound (People v. Hernandez, 229 Cal.App.2d 143, 150, 40 Cal.Rptr. 100). Neither the probation cases nor the 1967 holding of the United States Supreme Court (Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128, 88 S.Ct. 254, 19 L.Ed.2d 336) can apply to parole revocation, which involves no judicial act, such as pronouncement of judgment (In re Marks, 71 A.C. 33, 49, fn. 4, 77 Cal.Rptr. 1, 453 P.2d 441).

Under the rules announced today in Pope v. Superior Court (Mozingo), Cal.App., 88 Cal.Rptr. 483, we hold that the function of a court, in such a case, is to review the record upon which the Adult Authority revoked parole. Only if that record is wholly inadequate to sustain the action can it be deemed based upon mere caprice or no reason. Here that record shows ample support for the authority's action. The trial court apparently looked to the record only to find that Beasley had denied to the authority that he was guilty--a denial he notably failed...