Berch

People v. Berch

Good Law
241 Cal. Rptr. 3d 51·29 Cal. App. 5th 966
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 5, 2018G055344California4,492 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Fybel, J.

INTRODUCTION

*969 Defendant Brandon James Berch objected to having a commissioner preside over his preliminary and final parole revocation hearings. His objection was overruled. The commissioner revoked defendant's parole and committed him to 120 days in jail.

Government Code section 71622.5 authorizes commissioners to conduct parole revocation hearings as a necessary part of the implementation of the Criminal Justice Realignment Act of 2011. However, article VI, sections 21 and 22 of the California Constitution limit commissioners to the performance of "subordinate judicial duties" in the absence of a stipulation by the parties.

We hold that revoking parole and committing a defendant to jail for violation of parole are not subordinate judicial duties that may be performed by a commissioner in the absence of a stipulation by the parties. As has long been recognized: "the issuance of an order which can have the effect of placing the violator thereof in jail is not a 'subordinate judicial duty.' " ( In re Plotkin (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 1014 , 1017, 127 Cal.Rptr. 190 .) Because *970 defendant did not stipulate to the commissioner revoking his parole and committing him to jail, the…

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.