Penal Code section 1385 does not authorize a trial court to dismiss a parole revocation petition in the furtherance of justice. In 1991, Wiley was sentenced to a prison term of 26 years to life for murder, robbery, and kidnapping. He was released on parole in March 2017. He then violated parole conditions over the next several months. A parole revocation petition was filed on a number of grounds. The trial court found that Wiley violated parole by failing to return to his housing by curfew, but did not find the other grounds substantiated. Wiley argued that reincarceration was an excessive sanction for the sustained curfew violation, and urged the trial court to exercise its discretion under section 1385 and dismiss the curfew violation in the interest of justice. While apparently sympathetic, the trial court declined, believing that it had no such discretion, and remanded Wiley to the custody of CDCR upon revoking his parole. Wiley appealed. Held: Affirmed. Parolees subject to supervision under Penal Code section 3000.1 for murder (or section 3000, subdivision (b)(4) for certain sex offenses) who violate parole must be remanded to the custody of CDCR and the jurisdiction of the Board of Parole Hearings for the purpose of future parole consideration. Section 1385 gives the court discretion to order an action to be dismissed in the interests of justice. However, the only action that may be dismissed is a criminal action or a part thereof. The court’s power only reaches individual charges or allegations in the indictment or information. In People v. VonWahlde (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 1187, 1197, the court concluded that “[a] period of parole is not a criminal action or a part thereof as contemplated by section 1385.” VonWahlde did not address whether a trial court could dismiss a parole revocation proceeding (as opposed to striking a term of parole). Here, the Court of Appeal concluded that a parole revocation proceeding is not a criminal action or part thereof and section 1385 does not apply.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/A154248A.PDF