California v. Super. Ct.
Annotate this CaseDefendant Thomas Ward was convicted of felon-addict in possession of a firearm in 2012 and was sentenced to two years in prison. Rather than parole, as a non-violent offender, he was placed under "community supervision" following his release. The period of post-release community service cannot exceed three years. However, if the offender has been on supervision for a continuous year with no other violations of the conditions of post-release supervision, the offender could be discharged from supervision within thirty days. "Defendant’s performance under community supervision was far from ideal." The violation report contained multiple violations, two of which had resulted in periods of “flash incarceration.” The recommendation was that Ward be returned to custody and serve 180 days in county jail. After hearing argument from both sides, the court concluded that “flash incarceration” was not a “custodial sanction” within the meaning of Penal Code section 3456, subdivision (a)(3), but was merely a “tool” employed to correct behavior. The court also expressed concerns about the procedure by which “flash incarceration” had been imposed. Pursuant to section 3454, subdivision (b), the county agency supervising offenders on community supervision may order “flash incarceration” without judicial authorization. Section 3453, subdivision (q) provided that a person placed on such supervision “shall waive any right to a court hearing prior to the imposition of a period of ‘flash incarceration’. . . .” The probation department apparently had a policy of requiring offenders to sign a so-called “waiver” at the time of a violation. The record contained one such waiver executed by Ward. The court eventually concluded that the waiver was invalid because Ward gave up substantial rights without legal advice and through the use of the form, which did not adequately (in the court’s view) explain his options and the consequences. It relied on this as another basis for finding Ward free from further supervision, as in the court’s view he had not served any valid term of incarceration. The State appealed the trial court's judgment. Upon review, the Court of Appeal concluded Ward had suffered lawful "custodial sanctions" within the meaning of Penal Code 3456 (a)(3), and he remained under supervision when the violation report at issue was filed. The Court issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order dismissing violation proceedings, and to continue such proceedings.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.