California Prisoner Wins Challenge to Overbroad CDCR Records Request Made Prior to Resentencing
Prisoners in custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) who were serving a sentence with an enhancement for a prior prison term became entitled to resentencing when Pen. Code§ 1172.75 took effect in 2022, invalidating the enhancement. The new law required CDCR to notify the sentencing court and provide information to assist with a resentencing hearing. But on March 1, 2024, the state Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reigned in prosecutors’ request for one state prisoner’s records, calling foul on their failure to show “plausible justification” for each request.
Kevin Lunsted was serving a 17-year sentence, including a one-year enhancement for a prior prison term. After§ 1172.75 invalidated that enhancement, he became eligible for resentencing. To prepare for the resentencing hearing, the state issued CDCR a subpoena duces tecum (for production of records) for Lunsted’s prison case file, known as a “c-file.” He filed a motion to quash; while acknowledging the state had an interest in parts of his c-file, he contended the subpoena was overbroad because it included confidential medical and mental health records.
The state countered that the c-file reflected Lunsted’s conduct in prison, which was “one of the most important factors a court must consider for the purposes of resentencing.” The trial court agreed, denying the motion to quash and finding “good cause” for the subpoena.
Lunsted appealed this overreach, filing a petition for writ of mandate with the Court of Appeal. The Court initially issued a stay and then reversed the trial court’s ruling, finding it had used an incorrect standard of review. As the Court explained, the state Supreme Court had already addressed the process for assessing good cause when considering a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum in a criminal case: In Facebook, Inc. v. Superior Court, 471 P.3d 383 (Cal. 2020), the high court determined that trial courts are required to apply seven factors set forth in City of Alhambra v. Superior Court, 205 Cal.App.3d 1118 (Cal.App.2d Dist. 1988). Of relevance to Lunsted’s case, those factors include whether the requesting party has stated a “plausible justification” for the records, and whether the requested material is “adequately described and not overly broad.”
The Court found that “nothing in the record ‘reflects that the [trial] court expressly considered and balanced’ the seven required factors” when assessing the state’s request; rather, the lower court considered only whether the c-file was likely to have information relevant to the resentencing hearing.
The Court also noted that Facebook applies to subpoenas issued by both the defense and prosecution in criminal cases, since “procedures governing criminal discovery were designed ‘to be equal and reciprocal.’” The state’s other arguments were rejected and the case remanded to the trial court for reconsideration of Lunsted’s motion to quash under the correct legal standard. Before the Court, Lunsted was represented by Riverside County Public Defender (PD) Steven L. Harmon and Assistant PD William A. Meronek. See: Lunsted v. Superior Court, 100 Cal.App.5th 138 (Cal.App.4th Dist. 2024).