Certificate of Rehabilitation Shouldn’t Be Denied Due to the Severity of the Crime
In People v. Rounds, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reversed the ruling of the trial court denying the petitioner a Certificate of Rehabilitation and Pardon. The Court found that Mr. Rounds had demonstrated sufficient rehabilitation and that the petition should be granted.
Over 40 years ago, Mr. Rounds has pled guilty to second degree murder. He got angry with two people, shot one fatally and wounded the other one. The parole board released him in 2010 and he applied for a Certificate of Rehabilitation and Pardon in 2021. Mr. Rounds acknowledged guilt and expressed remorse. Since his release from custody, he volunteered with a number of organizations mentoring youth about the consequences of criminal behavior and how to become leaders and even developed his own organization. He also was employed with Amazon. The petition contained support letters describing his good character and rehabilitation.
Despite being statutorily eligible for a Certificate of Rehabilitation and Pardon, the trial court denied the petition for three main reasons. First, the severity of the offense. Second, that Mr. Rounds’ description of the crime had changed from the parole hearing. And third, the conviction should have been a plea to first degree murder since Mr. Rounds intended to kill with premeditation.
The Court of Appeal rejected all of these arguments and found that the trial court abused its discretion. The Court wrote: “Section 4852.05 provides a petitioner for a certificate of rehabilitation ‘shall live an honest and upright life, shall conduct himself or herself with sobriety and industry, shall exhibit a good moral character, and shall conform to and obey the laws of the land.’ (Ibid.) Read together, the statutes necessarily compel the conclusion that a trial court evaluating a petition for rehabilitation should consider the petitioner’s postrelease conduct, not the circumstances of the underlying crime.” Accordingly, “a certificate of rehabilitation cannot be denied based on the severity of the crime of which the petitioner was convicted.”
A change in description of the crime and acceptance of responsibility could be used by the trial court to deny the petition. “Whether the defendant has admitted his culpability in the underlying crime is a factor the trial court may appropriately consider when ruling on a petition for a certificate of rehabilitation.” However, the Court of Appeal reviewed all of Mr. Rounds’ statements about the crime, including the statement in his petition, and found that they did not actually differ substantially from each other. Each statement contained the same basic story and he admitted firing the gun without lawful provocation in all the statements. Consequently, denial on this ground was error.
The final ground for denial was that Mr. Rounds’ pled guilty to second degree murder when the trial court thought he was really guilty of first degree murder. “Denying a certificate of rehabilitation to a defendant on the grounds that he accepted the prosecutor’s offer of such a plea would be manifestly unfair.”
Taking into consideration the entirety of the petition, particularly Mr. Rounds’ service to the community as a mentor for at risk youth, the Court of Appeal found that the petition should have been granted. The case was remanded to the trial court for the petition to be granted.
The Law Office of David Reagan has over a decade of experience with Certificates of Rehabilitation and Pardon. Mr. Reagan knows what standards apply and how to present the evidence to show rehabilitation. Because a granted petition is forwarded to the Governor for their review of a Governor’s pardon, a Certificate of Rehabilitation is a crucial step for a felon seeking a pardon.
