Court Opinion

ID: 9731865
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:00:27.033025+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:21.662584
License: Public Domain

POCHÉ, J.
I concur in the result. I agree with the basic premise of my colleagues: the instant facial attack is not the proper method to raise constitutional challenges to Penal Code section 3003.1 For all we know, 99.9 percent of prison inmates in this state are tried, convicted and committed from the county of their residence and hence under section 3003 are paroled back home, and the . 1 percent of the inmates who commit crimes outside of their county residence are deemed by the Department of Corrections to fall outside of the presumption of section 3003 and are also paroled to their home county. Since such home town delivery would not support any constitutional objection to section 3003 that I am aware of, the statute must prevail over the general objection of the Prison Law Office. (Cf. People v. Harris (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 1246, 1255-1256 [212 Cal.Rptr. 216] [and cases cited therein].)
I express no other opinion as to the constitutionality of the statute.
Appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied December 31, 1986.

All statutory references are to the Penal Code.