Toussain

People v. Toussain

Good Law
193 Cal. Rptr. 3d 48·2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 851·240 Cal. App. 4th 974·2015 WL 5693736
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 29, 2015G050210California3,409 words

Opinion

Opinion

Aronson, J.

The trial court found California’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) lacked authority to supervise defendant Charles Andre Toussain on parole because his current commitment offense, failing to register as a sex offender, was not a crime that subjected him to classification as a high-risk sex offender. (See Pen. Code, § 3000.08, subd. (a)(4); all statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise designated.) The court dismissed CDCR’s petition alleging Toussain violated parole by tampering with his electronic monitoring (global positioning system or GPS) device, and directed that county officials supervise Toussain under the postrelease community supervision (PRCS) program. The Attorney General appeals from the order dismissing the petition, contending the Legislature authorized CDCR to classify the risk of reoffense posed by all registerable sex offenders released from prison, and therefore the offender’s current commitment offense is not determinative if CDCR has assessed the person as a high-risk sex offender. We agree the legislative scheme requires parole supervision for anyone CDCR has classified as a high-risk sex offender, regardless of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.