Skip to content
Name: In re David
Case #: B236792
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 01/06/2012
Summary

Under Penal Code section 3003, subdivision (f), which restricts a parolee convicted of certain crimes from living within 35 miles of a victim or witness, “victim” does not include the next-of-kin. Appellant was convicted of second degree murder resulting from driving under the influence of PCP and causing two fatalities. He was paroled in 2010. Under the parole residency restrictions contained in Penal Code section 3003, subdivision (f), he was ordered to not reside within 35 miles of the victim’s sister. In this habeas action, the court found that under the rules of statutory construction “victim” as set forth in the statute does not include next-of-kin, but means only the victim or a witness. Although a reasonable residency requirement as a condition of parole can be imposed pursuant to Penal Code section 3003, subdivision (b)(1), under the particulars of this case, such a restriction would not be reasonable. Petitioner did not know the victims, his intended residence was a considerable distance and in a different community from that of the next-of-kin, and the condition would not deter future criminality and has no relationship to petitioner’s crime.