People v. Rounds (Cal. Ct. App., June 5, 2024, No. G063593) 2024 WL 2842208, at *1–2
Summary: Rounds, Jr., challenged the trial court’s denial of his petition for a certificate of rehabilitation and pardon. (Pen. Code, § 4852.01 et seq.). The trial court considered factors that were irrelevant to the statutory criteria for evaluating a petition for a certificate of rehabilitation, including the nature of the underlying crime, the unfairness to the victims of granting the petition, and Rounds’s failure to plead guilty to a more serious charge. The court did not address the relevant statutory factors and did consider Rounds’s character and conduct in the nearly 40 years following the crime.
The trial court’s abuse of discretion amounts to a miscarriage of justice. The Court of Appeal reversed and published this opinion to clarify the factors the trial court may consider when evaluating a petition for a certificate of rehabilitation and pardon.
Facts and Procedural History
In February 1983, Rounds pled guilty to one count of second degree murder and was sentenced him to an indefinite term of 15 years to life, plus a concurrent definite term of seven years.
Twenty-seven years later, in 2010, Rounds was found suitable for parole, and he was paroled on August 3, 2010. Rounds was discharged from parole on October 3, 2014.
Seven years after being discharged from parole, and more than 38 years after committing the underlying crimes, Rounds filed a petition for a certificate of rehabilitation and pardon on December 27, 2021.
The trial court conducted a hearing on Rounds’s petition in November 2022. The district attorney opposed the petition because Rounds allegedly had failed to demonstrate insight, accountability, and restoration. On December 19, 2022, the court issued a written order denying the petition. Rounds filed a timely notice of appeal, and the trial court granted his request for a certificate of probable cause.
Standard of Review
“[R]eview of a grant or denial of a certificate of rehabilitation is confined to an abuse of discretion standard.” (People v. Lockwood (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 222, 226, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 769.) A trial court abuses its discretion when the decision exceeds the bounds of reason (People v. Blocker (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 438, 444, 118 Cal.Rptr.3d 215), or when the court is mistaken about the scope of its discretion (People v. Zeigler (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 638, 668, 149 Cal.Rptr.3d 786).
Petition for a Certificate Of Rehabilitation
“‘To enter an order known as a certificate of rehabilitation, the superior court must find that the petitioner is both rehabilitated and fit to exercise the rights and privileges lost by reason of his conviction.’ The overall goal of the statutory scheme is ‘to restore civil and political rights of citizenship to ex-felons who have proved their rehabilitation.’ ” (People v. Zeigler, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 653.)
A petitioner for a certificate of rehabilitation “shall live an honest and upright life, shall conduct himself or herself with sobriety and industry, shall exhibit a good moral character, and shall conform to and obey the laws of the land.” (§ 4852.05.) A court considering a petition for a certificate may request that the district attorney investigate the petitioner’s residence, criminal record, representations in the petition, and conduct during the rehabilitation period. (§ 4852.12, subd. (a).) The court also may require testimony and/or the production of records and reports relating to the petitioner and the crime, which may include the record of trial, and the petitioner’s prison, parole, and probation records. (§ 4852.1, subd. (a).) Section 4852.13 gives courts discretion to decide whether a petitioner has demonstrated by “his or her course of conduct his or her rehabilitation and his or her fitness to exercise all of the civil and political rights of citizenship.” (Id., subd. (a).)
“The hurdles erected by the Legislature to obtain a certificate of rehabilitation are not intended to be easily surmounted. The trial courts are entrusted with the responsibility, in the exercise of a sound discretion, to ensure that the strict statutory standards for rehabilitation are maintained.” (People v. Blocker, supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at p. 445.)
The issuance of a certificate of rehabilitation must be immediately reported to the Department of Justice, which in turn must immediately record the facts on the petitioner’s criminal record and transmit them to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. (§ 4852.17.) A certificate of rehabilitation, when transmitted to the Governor, constitutes an application for a full pardon; the Governor may issue a pardon based on the certificate of rehabilitation without further investigation. (§ 4852.16, subd. (a).) To grant a petition for a certificate of rehabilitation is in essence “a personal representation to the Governor” by the court that the petitioner is worthy of pardon. (People v. Blocker, supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at p. 445.)
“Because rehabilitation logically assumes guilt, numerous state and federal jurisdictions accept that ‘a court may properly consider a defendant’s refusal to acknowledge guilt when evaluating the defendant’s rehabilitation potential because acknowledgement of guilt is a critical first step towards rehabilitation.’ ” (People v. Blocker, supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at p. 442.)
Nothing in the statute or case law permits the trial court to consider the specifics of the crime itself or the fairness to the victim (or the victim’s family) of granting the petition. To the contrary, section 4852.03 provides the “period of rehabilitation” begins upon the discharge from custody or the release from parole, probation, postrelease community supervision, or mandatory supervision. (See People v. Zeigler, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 653.)
Section 4852.05 provides a petitioner for a certificate of rehabilitation “shall live an honest and upright life, shall conduct himself or herself with sobriety and industry, shall exhibit a good moral character, and shall conform to and obey the laws of the land.” A trial court evaluating a petition for rehabilitation should consider the petitioner’s post release conduct, not the circumstances of the underlying crime. Where, as here, the statutory criteria for rehabilitation are met, a certificate of rehabilitation cannot be denied based on the severity of the crime of which the petitioner was convicted. If a court could consider the seriousness of the long-ago offense to deny relief, no one who has committed a serious or violent crime could ever receive a certificate of rehabilitation. That is not what the statute provides and, given the Legislature’s failure to exclude convicted murderers from eligibility, manifestly not what the Legislature intended.
Disposition:The post judgment order is reversed and the matter is remanded to the trial court with directions to grant the petition for a certificate of rehabilitation and pardon.
The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information.