Monday, December 15, 2025
Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Judge Wrongly Booted Pregnant Woman From Program
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A Contra Costa Superior Court judge violated the due process rights of a midemeanant who was placed on a work-release program in liue of spending 60-days in jail but, after she missed a day because of morning sickness, was ordered to serve out the rest of the sentence in custody, Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal held Friday.
Acting in response to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Latasha Riley, the appeals court, rather than granting a writ, reversed the order by Judge Glenn Kim for a commitment to jail and remanded the matter, directing the court “to re-refer” Riley “to the work release program to complete any days that she may still owe on her term.”
Justice Victor Rodríguez wrote:
“We hold that persons enrolled in work release programs in lieu of jail time have a conditional liberty interest that cannot be revoked without affording due process….Under the facts of this case, we conclude the trial court violated Riley’s due process rights by ordering her back into custody based on a critical finding—that it was not feasible for her to participate in the program—unsupported by substantial evidence.”
Missed One Day
Riley did not know when she entered the work release program that she was pregnant. She did not show up for work on the seventh day because of morning sickness, and, when the reason for her non-attendance ewas erxplained, she was advised by the sheriff to return to couyrt to seek a lighter assignment.
Instead of redirecting her efforts, Kim declared that Riley had been sentenced to 60 days, was given afforded the opportunity to serve the time “by alternative means,” but because “[t]hose alternative means were no longer feasible...that 60-day jail sentence is going to go into effect.” He ordered her into immediate custody.
That was last September. A petition was filed in Div. Three on Sept. 30.
On Oct. 2, rthe panel issued an order to show cause and declared:
“Pending disposition of this habeas corpus proceeding, petitioner shall be temporarily released from custody.”
Unsupported Finding
In Friday’s opinion, Rodríguez said:
“To begin, it appears that only the sheriff had the power to terminate her participation in the program….But more importantly, at the heart of the court’s ruling was a critical factual finding that was unsupported by the record, and the court thus abused its discretion by relying on it when revoking her liberty….That is, the court remanded her to custody after finding her participation in the program ‘no longer feasible.’ The record is devoid of evidence supporting that finding….With no evidence supporting the court’s finding, its decision to terminate Riley’s participation in the program and remand her into custody was arbitrary, irrational, and an abuse of discretion.”
He added:
“Although we decline to further elaborate on what due process is owed to people in Riley’s position, we can safely conclude they are entitled to more than she received here.”
The case is In re Riley on Habeas Corpus, A174426.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company