Certificate of Rehabilitation & Post-Release Conduct

The following article is presented to not only help the reader better understand what should be considered by an judge in evaluating a certificate of rehabilitation (under Penal Code § 4852.01, et seq.), but to also serve as a cautionary tale of how, in general, judges are imperfect, which many people find incomprehensible.

In February 1983 in San Bernardino County Superior Court, George Dennis Rounds, Jr., pled guilty to one count of second degree murder (Penal Code § 187(a)) and one count of attempted murder (Penal Code §§ 187(a), 664(a)).  The trial court judge sentenced him to an indefinite term of 15 years to life, plus a concurrent term of 7 years.  The judge also imposed and stayed two two-year firearm sentencing enhancements.

Twenty-seven years later, in 2010, Mr. Rounds was found suitable for parole and was paroled on August 3, 2010. 

 

Mr. Rounds was discharged from parole on October 3, 2014.  

On December 27, 2021, seven years after being discharged from parole, and more than 38 years after committing the underlying crimes, Mr. Rounds filed a petition for a certificate of rehabilitation and a pardon.  Mr. Rounds decided to represent himself.

In February 2022, the judge assigned to the case, J. David Mazurek, referred the matter to the district attorney for a background investigation.  The investigative report was filed with the judge in October 2022.  It concluded that Mr. Rounds was statutorily eligible for a certificate of rehabilitation and a pardon.

A short recitation of the legal standards applicable to a certificate of rehabilitation is apropos at this point in this article.  “To enter an order known as a certificate of rehabilitation, the superior court must find that the petitioner is both rehabilitated and fit to exercise the rights and privileges lost by reason of his conviction. [citations] The overall goal of the statutory scheme is ‘to restore civil and political rights of citizenship to ex-felons who have proved their rehabilitation.’” People v. Ziegler (2012) 211 Cal. App. 4th 638, 653. 

A petitioner may not apply for a certificate of rehabilitation if he or she was sentenced to death or to serve a mandatory life parole, or if he or she was convicted of certain specified sex crimes against children.  Penal Code § 4852.01(c).

“Because ‘rehabilitation logically assumes guilt [citation], numerous state and federal jurisdictions accept that ‘a court may properly consider a defendant’s refusal to acknowledge guilt when evaluating the defendant’s rehabilitation potential because acknowledgement of guilt is a critical first step toward rehabilitation” People v. Blocker (2010) 190 Cal. App. 4th 438, 442.

A petitioner for a certificated 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.” Penal Code § 4852.05.  

“The hurdles erected by the Legislature to obtain a certificate of rehabilitation are not intended to be easily surmounted.” Blocker, supra, 445.

A certificate of rehabilitation, when transmitted to the Governor, constitutes an application for a full pardon.  To grant a petition for a certificate of rehabilitation is in essence “a personal representation of the Governor” by the court that the petitioner is worthy of pardon.  Blocker, supra, at 445.

Mr. Rounds’ certificate of rehabilitation explained that he wanted to obtain a certificate of rehabilitation in order to be able to address children in public schools and at juvenile detention centers and encourage then not to make the mistakes he made.

To demonstrate he had lived an “honest and upright life, conducted with sobriety and industry,” Mr. Rounds attached to his petition certificates of recognition from the Catholic Diocese of San Bernardino County for participating in the Creating Hope with Youth program from 2010, as well as other certificates of appreciation and of national service from the Urban Conservation Corps between 2011 and 2012.  

In 2021, Mr. Rounds formed and served as the organizer and primary consultant of a business called DrivenBouund LLC, whose mission is to mentor and empower male youth by providing them with life skills and examples of personal experience of adults who in their youth had to overcome obstacles of serving 20 to 30 years in the California justice system. 

In November 2022, Judge Mazurek then conducted a hearing on Mr. Rounds certificate of rehabilitation.  The San Bernardino County District Attorney opposed the certificate, arguing that Mr. Rounds failed to demonstrate insight, accountability, and restoration.  

The judge denied the petition and Mr. Rounds appealed to the Fourth Appellate District in Riverside, which reversed the trial court.

The appellate court criticized the trial court judge for considering the nature of the underlying crime, the unfairness to the victims in granting the petition and Rounds’ failure to plead guilty to a more serious charge.  The judge did not address the relevant statutory grounds and did not so much as mention Mr. Rounds’ character and conduct in the nearly 40 years following the crime.

The Fourth District described this as an abuse of discretion amounting to a miscarriage of justice.  The matter was then remanded to the trial court with directions to grant the petition for a certificate of rehabilitation and pardon.