Monday, March 4, 2013

In re Vicks REVERSED by the CA Supreme Court. Unfortunately for LIFERS - Marsy's Law remains the Law!

 In re MICHAEL D. VICKS on Habeas Corpus SUMMARY OUTCOME.

The long awaited In Re Vicks Decision from the 1/8/13 ORAL argument is finally decided. Unfortunately the CA Supreme Court did not think there was anything wrong with applying this 2008 voted in Marsy's Law to Lifers that had already been sentenced BEFORE this law was enacted.What a Let down for all the Lifers, it was good battle at the Court of Appeal, unfortunately it was lost at the CA  SUPREME court.

WHAT happens now if my loved one was denied 3,5,7,10,or 15 years?

The fall back position is to do a PETITION TO ADVANCE the parole hearing earlier than the 3, 5, 7, 10, or 15 year denial. One can use the BPH 1045(a) form to Advance Petition, when the inmate has been denied multiple years but new circumstances have developed so that he no longer needs additional time. The petition should then be submitted for a new Lifer Parole Hearing, before the full denial period.

==================
In 2008, California voters approved Proposition 9, the Victims Bill of Rights Act of 2008: Marsy’s Law. The changes enacted by Marsy’s Law became effective immediately; pertinent here are the amendments to Penal Code1 section 3041.5 that increase the denial (3 to 15 years) period of time between parole hearings but allow for the advancement of a hearing if a change in circumstances or new information subsequently establishes that there is a reasonable probability the prisoner is suitable for parole.

Petitioner Michael D. Vicks (Vicks) contends that application of these new parole procedures to prisoners who committed their crimes prior to the enactment of Marsy’s Law violates the ex post facto clauses of the federal and state Constitutions. (U.S. Const., art. I, § 10, cl. 1; Cal. Const., art. I, § 9.)  He challenges the amendments both on their face and as applied to him.

For the reasons set forth below in the full opinion, CA SUPREME Court reject both of his challenges and reverse the Court of Appeal.

See the full opinion  In re Vicks opinion at CA SUPREME COURT OPINION.

Friday, March 1, 2013

In re VICKS: OPINION to be filed MONDAY 3/4/13 @10am



SUPREME Court Issue -  Is Marsy's Law a violation of ex post facto principles for those incarcerated BEFORE Marsy's Law?    See the 2013  UPDATES at the California Appellate Court case Information.

Case was argued and submitted on 1/8/13 in San Francisco. QUICK 1/10/13 SUMMARY:  Justice Liu seemed to be our biggest advocate, while Corrigan appeared to be clearly on the other side (no surprise given her 1983-1986 Position as Special Consultant, President’s Task Force on Victims of Violent Crime, 1982.) Other justices were on the fence while other were hard to read.  The Chief Justice was sworn into office on January 3, 2011 is the first Asian-Filipina American and the second woman to serve as the state’s Chief Justice. Of course, you never really can call these cases, so we'll just have to wait & see. (A Personal thanks to the In re Vicks' Attorney who argued the case on 1/8/2013)
 
In re Russo (2011), Cal.App.4th (No. D057405 Fourt Dist.. Div One. April  8, 2011)
In conclusion, the Court held that Marsy's law was just an "admistrative method by which a parole release date is set..." and concluded that no ex post facto violation occurred.

In Re Vicks (2011), Cal.App.4th (No. D056998. Fourt Dist.. Div One. May 11, 2011).
In conclusion, the Court conclude the application of the amendments to Penal Code section 3041.5, subdivision (b), to inmates whose commitment offense was committed prior to the effective date of Marsy's Law (November 5,  2008) violates ex post facto principles.
 
In re Aragon (2011), Cal.App.4th (No. D058040 Fourt Dist.. Div One. June 9, 2011).

In re Smith (2011), 196 Cal.App.4th 468, review granted September 14, 2011, S194750.

In re Rodriguez (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1158, review granted January 18, 2012, S197961;
In conclusion, the Court rejected the In re Vicks panel's conclusion and stated that Marsy's Law does NOT violate the ex post facto principles.

In summary, WE will have an OPINION by March 4, 2013 from the CA Supreme Court. It will  be a Ruling on:  Whether Marsy's Law is being applied ex post facto (after the fact) on thousands of LIFERS since Prop 9 became effective late 2008 thus denying them from 3 to 15 years at their LIFER Parole Suitability vs. the old law of 1 to 5 year denials when they were found unsuitable.