Summary: Annette Gaylene Batten served a life term for murder and was released on lifetime parole in 2017. In 2023, she committed two parole violations. Penal Code section 3000.08, subdivision (h) required the court to remand her to the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Batten appealed, arguing that under a statute enacted in 2020, someone convicted of murder but released on parole after July 2020 would have been placed on parole for only three years and woud have been eligible for punishments other than mandatory remand to the CDCR. (§§ 3000.01, as enacted by Stats. 2020, ch. 29, § 18, 3000.08, subds. (f) & (g).) Batten claims her right to equal protection was violated under strict scrutiny or, in the alternative, rational basis review. The Court of Appeal affirmed because a rational basis review applies and that there is a rational basis to treat the two groups of inmates differently.
Background
Batten was convicted of first degree murder in 1996 and sentenced to life in prison. She was released on parole in August 2017. She performed well on parole, but at a parole revocation hearing in December 2023, Batten admitted two violations of the conditions of her parole based on a 2021 driving under the influence arrest. The trial court ordered Batten’s parole revoked and remanded her to the custody of the CDCR and the jurisdiction of the Board of Parole Hearings (Board) for future parole consideration. In June 2024, the Board denied Batten’s request for parole for one year.
Analysis
Under section 3000.1, subdivision (a), any inmate sentenced to life in prison for first or second degree murder is released on parole, if at all, for the rest of the inmate’s life. If an inmate released on lifetime parole under section 3000.1 is found to have violated the conditions of parole, the trial court must remand the parolee “to the custody of the [CDCR] and the jurisdiction of the Board of Parole Hearings for the purpose of future parole consideration.” (§ 3000.08, subd. (h).) When most other parolees violate their parole conditions, “a trial court generally has the discretion to modify or revoke parole, including the authority to sentence the person to county jail for up to 180 days, or refer the person to a reentry court or other evidence-based program.” (People v. Reed (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 43, 51,(Reed); § 3000.08, subds. (f) & (g).)
The Legislature enacted section 3000.01 in 2020 that applies to inmates released from state prison on or after July 1, 2020 (§ 3000.01, subd. (a)), and states that “notwithstanding any other law” (id., subd. (b)) and with two exceptions not relevant here, “[a]ny inmate sentenced to a life term shall be released on parole for a period of three years” (id., subd. (b)(2)).
Reed recognized a conflict between sections 3000.01 and 3000.1 for inmates released after July 1, 2020, in that both statutes purport to establish the term of parole for inmates released after life sentences for first or second degree murder. Reed held that section 3000.01, the later-enacted statute, takes precedence because of the “ ‘notwithstanding any other law’ ” clause, so that the term of parole for an inmate sentenced to life in prison for murder who is released after July 1, 2020, is three years. Reed held that because such an inmate is not released on lifetime parole, when the inmate violates the terms of parole, the mandatory remand provision in section 3000.08, subdivision (h) does not apply and the trial court has authority to choose from the alternative sanctions under section 3000.08, subdivisions (f) and (g).
Batten admits she does not benefit from section 3000.01 and was subject to mandatory remand to the CDCR under section 3000.08, subdivision (h) because she was released on parole before July 1, 2020. Batten contends that the different treatment of inmates released before and after July 1, 2020, violates equal protection principles of the state and federal constitutions.
Rational basis review applies to Batten’s equal protection challenge
Batten’s challenge does not concern a suspect class so a rational basis review applies. Rational basis review is designed to avoid second-guessing of policy choices. The question is whether there is any rational reason why the Legislature could have chosen to make section 3000.01 operate only prospectively from July 1, 2020. When the Board is determining whether to offer parole to an inmate, it does so in part based on conditions of treatment or control on parole. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2402.) The Board could decide that parole would not be appropriate for some inmates if they would only be supervised for three years after release, while parole would be appropriate if the term were longer. The Board could also determine that some inmates would only be suitable for parole if subject to mandatory remand to CDCR custody for a parole violation. The Legislature could reasonably decide that upending these Board considerations by changing the term of parole for such inmates or releasing them from the mandatory consequences for a parole violation would be unwise, and it could therefore rationally choose to make section 3000.01 operate prospectively only.
Batten will benefit from section 3000.01 and be free of the mandatory remand provision in section 3000.08, subdivision (h) whenever she is next released on parole. If she were to violate her conditions of parole again, like Reed did, the trial court would have the authority to select the appropriate punishment, just like the trial court in Reed.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
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.