Court Opinion

ID: 9380216
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-17 17:02:55.231321+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:23.451200
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/17/23 In re Berthelotte CA4/2
Opinion following rehearing
                            NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
  California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
                                      or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

           IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                                   FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                  DIVISION TWO

                                                                          E079251
 In re COLE CHRISTOPHER
 BERTHELOTTE                                                              (Super.Ct.No. SWF2100454)

 on Habeas Corpus.                                                        The County of Riverside

                                                                          OPINION

         ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of habeas corpus. Albert J.

Wojcik, Judge. (Retired judge of the Riverside County Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief

Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Granted.

         John P. Newton for Petitioner.

         Kelly A. Moran and Minh C. Tran, County Counsel for Real Party in Interest

Riverside County Sheriff’s Department.

         Michael A. Hestrin, District Attorney, and Jesse Male, Deputy District Attorney

for Invited Participant, the People.

         Cole Christopher Berthelotte filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging

the trial court’s decision to set his bail at $1 million. He contends that the trial court

failed to comply with In re Humphrey (2021) 11 Cal.5th 135 (Humphrey), and that the

                                                              1
district attorney’s basis for requesting the bail amount stemmed from a campaign of

vindictive prosecution. We issued an order to show cause. We now conclude a remand

is necessary because the trial court failed to set out reasons on the record why less

restrictive alternatives could not reasonably protect the government’s interests in public

or victim safety.1

                                      BACKGROUND

         In April 2021, the People filed a complaint charging Berthelotte with oral

copulation of a child under 14 (§ 287, subd. (c)(1)) and committing a lewd act on a child

under 14 (§ 288, subd. (a)).

         At the arraignment, Berthelotte pled not guilty and asked to be released on his own

recognizance, given that he has no contacts outside the state, does not have a criminal

history, and has lived in the same house with his mother his entire life. Berthelotte also

noted that Humphrey, which had been decided just weeks earlier, “basically eviscerated”

the state’s pre-existing bail scheme. The court denied the request, found under

Humphrey that “clear and convincing evidence [showed] that no accommodation of

conditions [would] reasonably ensure the safety of the victim and public in this matter

[a]nd no nonmonetary alternatives to bail are adequate or sufficient to ensure public

safety or ensure the defendant’s future court appearance,” and set bail at $110,000.

Berthelotte posted bail and subsequently obtained a job stocking grocery store shelves at

night.

1   Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                              2
       The People filed an amended complaint in February 2022 alleging an additional

count of each crime. At the preliminary hearing two months later, the trial court held

Berthelotte to answer and, upon the People’s request, set a bail review hearing on the date

of arraignment on the information. The People requested a bail review hearing based on

the possibility that even more charges could be filed, which would affect the bail amount

requested.

       The subsequently filed information charged two counts of oral copulation of a

child 10 or under (§ 288.7, subd. (b)) and two counts of committing a lewd act on a child

under 14 (§ 288, subd. (a)). This increased Berthelotte’s criminal exposure; although oral

copulation of a child under 14 (as previously charged) is punishable by three, six, or eight

years in prison, oral copulation of a child under 10 (as now charged) is punishable by a

term of 15 years to life. (§§ 287, subd. (c)(1), 288.7, subd. (b).)

       At the bail review hearing, the People requested that the trial court “set bail either

at no bail under Humphrey or set it at $1 million,” the amount set by the bail schedule.

Berthelotte contended that the trial court (under a previous magistrate) misapplied

Humphrey at the 2021 arraignment and that, under a proper analysis with the current

pleading, the People failed to show that unaffordable bail or pretrial detention was

authorized. He noted, as he did at the 2021 arraignment, that he has no criminal history,

no contacts outside of the state, and that he has lived with his mother his entire life. He

also noted that he has been in full compliance with the trial court’s orders (by attending

every hearing on time and complying with the protective order barring contact with the

                                              3
victim) and that he has no access to the victim or other children. In response, the People

contended that the increased criminal exposure increased Berthelotte’s flight risk; that he

actually did have family outside of California; and that “we don’t know whether he has

continuing access to children.” Berthelotte replied that the People’s reference to his

family out of state were to his grandparents on his estranged father’s side and that he does

not speak to his father or have ties to those grandparents.

       The trial court then stated its ruling in the following exchange:

       “[Court:] Looking at the amended felony complaint in the information, the stakes

have been raised considerably. I could understand why bail was what it was set at

previously, $110,000, on this particular matter and the issues that I have to address

because the complaint or the information is a new one. It’s a couple weeks old, May

11th. Because of that and because of the stakes being raised, I do see a potential flight

risk. [¶] The fact that Mr. Berthelotte appeared in court whenever he was ordered to

appear in court, that was based upon the other charges. We have the individual in two

different incidents, I guess, under 14 years of age. He is a threat to the alleged victim, a

threat to public safety, alleged victim is under 14 years of age. I am going to set bail in

the amount of $1 million. He will be remanded to custody at this time.

       “[Defense Counsel]: Your Honor, may I add one more thing? May I add one

more thing?

                                              4
       “[Court]: I don’t want to hear anything further. If there’s a Humphrey argument,

if there’s a Humphrey argument because of the issues I raised, I’d have him held without

bail. So based on Humphrey, he will be held without bail; otherwise, it’s $1 million.”

       The court exonerated the current bail bond and held Berthelotte on $1 million bail.

Berthelotte currently remains in custody.

                                       DISCUSSION

       Humphrey held that pretrial detention “is impermissible unless no less restrictive

conditions of release can adequately vindicate the state’s compelling interests.”

(Humphrey, supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 151-152.) The same is true if, instead of pretrial

detention, a court sets bail at an amount a defendant cannot afford. (See In re Kowalczyk

(2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 667, 690 [“If, in balancing the liberty interest of an accused with

the state’s compelling interests, an outright pretrial detention order would be appropriate,

then a fortiori a bail order an in amount higher than a defendant can afford would also be

appropriate”], footnote omitted.) These protections arise in no small part from the fact

that “[t]he accused retains a fundamental constitutional right to liberty.” (Humphrey,

supra, at p. 150.)

       Thus, “[w]here the record reflects the risk of flight or a risk to public or victim

safety, the court should consider whether nonfinancial conditions of release may

reasonably protect the public and the victim or reasonably assure the arrestee’s presence

at trial.” (Humphrey, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 154.) Only after “a reasoned inquiry” and a

“careful consideration of the individual arrestee’s circumstances” may a court conclude,

                                              5
based on “clear and convincing evidence,” that either pretrial detention or unaffordable

bail may be imposed. (Id. at p. 156; see In re Kowalczyk, supra, 85 Cal.App.5th at p.

690].)

         A court’s reasons for imposing pretrial detention or unaffordable bail may not be

implied; rather, a court making such a determination is obliged to “set forth the reasons

for its decision on the record and to include them in the court’s minutes.” (Humphrey,

supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 155; see In re Harris (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 1085, 1105 [trial

courts must “separately state and identify their reasons for finding that less restrictive

alternatives to detention” are insufficient] (Harris), review granted Mar. 9, 2022,

S272632.) Due process requires as much. (Humphrey, supra, at p. 155.)

         Because the court’s decision called for an exercise of judgment based on the

record before it, we review for an abuse of discretion. (See In re White (2020) 9 Cal.5th

455, 469.) The court’s discretion “must be exercised within the confines of the

applicable legal principles.” (Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern

California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747, 773.)

         Here, the record of the bail review hearing contains no indication that the trial

court considered either what bail Berthelotte could afford or the adequacy of nonfinancial

conditions of release. It did not, for instance, weigh the concern that Berthelotte “is a

threat to the alleged victim” against Berthelotte’s compliance with the protective order

prohibiting any contact with her. It also did not expressly state why Berthelotte’s flight

risk due to the “stakes being raised” would not have been reasonably addressed by

                                               6
electronic monitoring or supervision by pretrial services. Rather, it jumped from

considering flight risk and public safety to a bare conclusion that $1 million bail was

necessary, only concluding (by implication) that both nonfinancial release conditions and

affordable bail were insufficient. That jump contravenes Humphrey and was therefore an

abuse of discretion. (See also Harris, supra, 71 Cal.App.5th at p. 1105 [conditionally

vacating bail order where trial court “did not actually address any less restrictive

alternatives to pretrial detention and did not articulate its analytical process as to why

such alternatives could not reasonably protect the government’s interests”], review

granted; In re Brown (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 296, 307 (Brown) [vacating bail order where

trial court “failed to address any of the specific nonfinancial conditions proposed by

[petitioner] or to indicate, even in general, why nonfinancial conditions of release . . .

would be insufficient to protect the victims or the public or obviate the risk of flight”].)
                   2
       The People contend that the trial court was statutorily required to find that

unusual circumstances exist before deviating from the bail schedule and that Berthelotte’s

proffered evidence was unsubstantiated and therefore insufficient. However, blind

       2
          Our initial order to show cause was directed at the District Attorney even though
neither the District Attorney nor the People was holding Berthelotte in custody. (See
§ 1477.) The District Attorney then filed what it called an “Invited Return” and called
itself an “Invited Participant” while noting that Berthelotte’s custodian was still not a
party. We issued an opinion on February 15, 2023 granting Berthelotte relief, and the
People filed a petition for rehearing the next day. We granted the petition, vacated the
opinion, and ordered the Riverside County Sheriff, Berthelotte’s custodian, to show cause
why relief should not be granted. The Riverside County Sheriff filed a one-sentence
response that stated that it would operate in accordance with court orders, raising no
arguments nor joining in arguments made. Counsel informed the court that the Sheriff
did not wish to orally argue. We thus consider the People’s arguments here.

                                              7
reliance on a bail schedule is not permissible after Humphrey. “Under Humphrey the

amount specified in the bail schedule (or any other amount of bail, for that matter) is

appropriate only if the court first determines the arrestee can afford to post it.” (Brown,

supra, 76 Cal.App.5th at p. 307.) And here, at the bail review hearing, the trial court
                                                                                                3
never determined on the record one way or the other what bail Berthelotte could afford.

Thus, we need not consider the evidentiary burdens and standards for determining ability

to pay bail; the trial court’s decision violated Humphrey regardless of whether Berthelotte

can actually afford the amount set by the bail schedule.

       In sum, Berthelotte is entitled to a new hearing at which the trial court considers,

on the record, what amount of bail Berthelotte can afford and, if it decides to either set

bail at an unaffordable amount or deny bail altogether, why less restrictive alternatives

would not reasonably protect the public and the victim or reasonably assure his presence

at trial. Because we find that Berthelotte is entitled to another bail review hearing under
                                                                                       4
Humphrey, we need not, and do not, address his claims of vindictive prosecution.

       3
           At the 2021 arraignment, the trial court assumed that Berthelotte was indigent.
       4
          In its return and at oral argument, the People contended that we should d eny the
petition because it was never directed to the warden holding Berthelotte in custody.
Brown recently reiterated that a writ of habeas corpus is the appropriate vehicle to
challenge the denial of bail. (Brown, supra, 76 Cal.App.5th at p. 301.) That case
construed a petition for a writ of mandate as a petition for a habeas writ and ordered a
new bail hearing even though, like here, the writ was opposed by the District Attorney,
not the Attorney General’s office. (Ibid.) The procedure here was thus not legally
inappropriate under that authority, and, practically, we are not ordering the warden to
take any action here. At this stage in the proceedings, and given Berthelotte’s clear
entitlement to relief, we see no reason to deny the petition regardless of what procedure
                                                                  [footnote continued on next page]

                                              8
                                      DISPOSITION

       The petition is granted. The Riverside Superior Court is directed to vacate its

order setting bail at $1 million and thereafter hold a new hearing to consider Berthelotte’s

bail in a manner that is consistent with Humphrey and this court’s opinion.

       We decline Berthelotte’s other requests for relief, including his request for release

on his own recognizance.

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                                RAPHAEL
                                                                                           J.

We concur:

CODRINGTON
          Acting P. J.

FIELDS
                           J.

our division would adopt as preferred. (See § 1484 [court may grant any relief “as the
justice of the case may require”].)

                                             9