tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34092477586135393352024-03-13T20:42:55.939-07:00LIFER Parole Hearings Law 619-233-3688, after 5pm 1-888-200-8385Attorney Diane T. Letarte: LIFER Parole Hearings CALL 619-233-3688.
BLOG Focuses on the Law/News that impacts inmates with LIFE, long-term DSL (SB260 & 261, AB1308, 3X'er, LWOP) Suitability Hearings are governed mostly by Penal Code 3041, et seq. LAWRENCE and SHAPUTIS CA Supreme Court cases are 2008 Landmark cases. 3/4/13, In Re Vicks Reversed by CA Supreme. 2/22/16, Gilman v. Brown was reversed by the 9th Cir. Marsy's Law aka (prop 9, 89) remains Law. Butler reversedDiane T. Letartehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16084529192330718661noreply@blogger.comBlogger175125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409247758613539335.post-39606341751011260792024-03-05T21:38:00.000-08:002024-03-13T20:42:24.948-07:00PEOPLE V. HARDIN 3/4/2024: In a 5-2 Decision California Supreme Court UPHELD State Law that Young Adults (18-25) CAN BE sentenced to Life Without possibility of Parole (LWOP) <p><u><i><b>PEOPLE v. HARDIN (2024)</b></i></u> S277487 03/04/2024<br />Second Appellate District, Division Seven B315434<br />Los Angeles County Superior Court A893110<br /><br />Full opinion can be seen (this March 2024) at:<br /><a href="https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S277487.PDF">https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S277487.PDF</a><br />==========================================================<br /> </p><p><b>BACKGROUND </b>on this monumental Youth Offender case: </p><p><br /><u><i><b>People v. Hardin 2022</b></i></u> California Courts of Appeal (COA) decision:</p><p>The case involved Tony Hardin, sentenced to life without parole in 1990 for robbing and murdering a neighbor, Norma Barber, 66, in her apartment in Rowland Heights (Los Angeles County) a year earlier, when he was 25. Hardin stole her jewelry and car keys before strangling her and said later that he had been “desperate for money to buy drugs.” His prosecutors unsuccessfully sought a death sentence for Hardin, who is now 60.</p><p>A state appeals court ruled in 2022 that Hardin was entitled to a youthful-offender parole hearing. Permanently denying release in such a case, Justice Dennis Perluss wrote, prevents the state and its parole board from considering research that shows “the human brain — especially those portions responsible for judgment and decision-making — continues to develop into a person’s mid-20s.”</p><p>In that 2022 case, the COA had ruled that a provision in California law that denied certain young adults sentenced to life without parole the opportunity for a youth offender parole hearing was unconstitutional. The court found the law did not have a rational basis for excluding this group from consideration for parole and thus violated the Equal Protection Clause.</p><p>* **Holding:** The Second Appellate District held that Penal Code section 3051, subdivision (h), violates the Equal Protection Clause because it does not provide a rational basis for treating young adult offenders who committed a special-circumstance murder and were sentenced to life without parole differently from other young adult offenders who committed different serious or violent crimes and received parole-eligible indeterminate life terms, including those that could be the functional equivalent of a life without parole sentence.</p><p>* **Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the government's asserted justification for the distinction, namely that young adult offenders who commit special-circumstance murder are more likely to be dangerous than other young adult offenders, is not supported by the evidence. The court found that there is no significant difference in the recidivism rates of young adult offenders who commit special-circumstance murder and other young adult offenders who commit serious or violent crimes.</p><p>Other state appeals courts had rejected similar claims and because there were different outcomes in the other state appeals court; the state’s high court (California Supreme Court) agreed to take up Hardin’s case and resolve the issue.</p><p>====================================================<br /><span style="font-size: medium;">The California Supreme Court's 2024 Decision was published on Monday 3/4/2024</span></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;">See below for a quick summary. The Full Opinion is in the Above link.<br /></span></b></p><p></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;">California Supreme Court reverses the Courts of Appeal and upholds life-without-parole (LWOP) sentences for adults under 26 years of age.</span></b></p><p><br />“This conclusion does not turn on this court’s judgments about what constitutes sound sentencing policy,” Justice Leondra Kruger wrote in the majority opinion. “It turns on the deference we owe to the policy choices made through the democratic process by the people of California and their elected representatives.” </p><p>She was joined by Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero and Justices Carol Corrigan, Martin Jenkins and Joshua Groban.<br /><br /><br /><b>YOUTH OFFENDER LAW BACKGROUND:</b></p><p>California’s youth offender parole statute offers opportunities for early release to certain persons who are incarcerated for crimes they committed at a young age. (Pen. Code, §§ 3051, 4801.) When it was first enacted in 2013, the statute applied only to individuals who committed their crimes before the age of 18; the purpose of the statute was to align California law with then-recent court decisions identifying Eighth Amendment limitations on life without parole sentences for juvenile offenders. In more recent years, however, the Legislature has expanded the statute to include certain young adult offenders as well. Under the current version of the statute, most persons incarcerated for a crime committed between ages 18 and 25 are entitled to a parole hearing during the 15th, 20th, or 25th year of their incarceration. (Pen. Code, § 3051, subd. (b).) But not all youthful offenders are eligible for parole hearings. The statute excludes, among others, offenders who are serving sentences of life in prison without the possibility of parole for a crime committed after the age of 18. (Id., subd. (h).)</p><p><br /><b>Justices Goodwin Liu and Kelli Evans dissented</b>. Noting that more than three-quarters of the 3,000 prisoners now serving life-without-parole sentences in California are either Black or Hispanic, Evans said the 2013 state law that the court upheld “embodies racial bias that has plagued our criminal and juvenile justice systems since their inception.” She urged the Legislature to change the law.</p><p><br />Justices Goodwin Liu states: <br /></p><p style="margin-left: 40px; text-align: left;"><i>Today’s opinion rationalizes the exclusion by imputing to the Legislature a purpose — calibrating “culpability and the appropriate level of punishment for certain very serious crimes” (maj. opn., ante, at p. 26) — that is nowhere stated in the statute or its legislative history. It then posits that special- circumstance murder is generally distinguishable from simple first degree murder in terms of culpability (id. at pp. 33–42) despite strong evidence to the contrary. According to the court, nothing more is required under rational basis review. Although I agree that rational basis review applies to Hardin’s claim, I disagree with how the court has applied it here.</i><br /></p><p><br />Attorney Greg Wolff, who filed arguments on behalf of Human Rights Watch and other advocacy groups, said the ruling was “disappointing but not surprising. Persons sentenced to life without parole for crimes committed when they were young deserve a chance to prove they’ve changed.”</p><p><br />Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the conservative Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, said a lower-court ruling that would have allowed parole hearings “unconstitutionally amended state law to give some of California’s worst murderers a chance for release. In today’s decision, the California Supreme Court confirmed that such power belongs to the people, not the courts.”<br /><br /><b>Editor's Note: </b></p><p><b>Justices Goodwin Liu and Kelli Evans dissented with over 60 pages of the 118-page opinion</b>, with what I considered to be a well-reasoned opinion.</p><p><br />Supreme Court dissenting opinions in cases like these can sometimes become the majority view later on because they address evolving societal values and legal interpretations. These dissents may reflect a more progressive perspective on the Constitution or social justice issues. Over time, public opinion can shift, and new justices appointed to the court may hold different legal philosophies. If the arguments in the dissent are well-reasoned and persuasive, they can influence future cases and eventually lead to a reversal of the original decision.<br /><br /> </p>Diane T. Letartehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16084529192330718661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409247758613539335.post-3547508281268398942024-02-17T15:27:00.000-08:002024-02-17T15:27:47.441-08:00IT'S BACK, after Covid: MARK your CALENDAR : 6/29/2024 : THE 8TH ANNUAL LIFER CELEBRATION BBQ PARTY: JOIN US<p>WHAT: First Post-Covid Lifer Party 2024-Eighth Annual Lifer Celebration <br /></p><p>WHEN: June 29th 2024 Noon until 5PM
WHAT: ECC LIFER BBQ PARTY </p><p>WHERE: Boisseranc Park 7520 Dale St. Buena Park, CA 90620 </p><p> </p><p> ===========GROUP PICTURES BEING TAKEN AT 3PM =========</p><p> </p><p>Eccher Consulting Company (ECC) is happy to announce that they are hosting the Annual Lifer celebration.
All lifers, families, and friends are invited to attend - even the ATTORNEYS (smiley)! </p><p>THE LAW OFFICE OF DIANE T LETARTE WILL BE THERE WITH STAFF TO MEET AND GREET OUR RELEASED CLIENTS AND ALL OTHERS! </p><p> <b>DIRECTIONS:</b> </p><p>The park is already reserved. It is on North Dale Street with the major cross-street La Palma Avenue. 1 mile from the I-5/91 Freeway Split.
This is a beautiful park with 200-parking spots nearby, 2-playgrounds for kids, 4-tennis/handball courts, 3- basketball courts, swimming pool with 2-life guards, 2-large clean restrooms, dog- friendly, plenty of grass and shade trees. We have 26-tables and 125-chairs, bring a blanket and make it a picnic if you like! Buena Park is normally 80-degrees in June.</p><p> <span style="font-size: large;"><b>No alcohol allowed in park. Sorry.</b> </span></p><p> <b>FOOD: </b> </p><p>600-pieces of Fried Chicken, </p><p>600-Nathan’s Kosher Dogs cooked on the spot, </p><p>80-Pizzas delivered hourly, </p><p>1000-bottles of water and cans of soda,
potato salad, coleslaw, chips, fresh vegetables and fruit, plus plenty of sweets. </p><p>Everyone is welcome. </p><p>If you would like to bring a dish, water, soda, other food, sweets or make a financial donation that would be appreciated to help offset the cost</p><p><span> </span><span> <u> </u></span><u><span> </span></u><u><span> <b> </b></span></u><u><b><span> </span></b></u><u><b><span> </span></b></u><u><b>JUST COME AND ENJOY THE CELEBRATION!</b></u></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"> FUN PHOTOS FROM PRIOR (2019, pre-covid) LIFER BBQ PARTIES:
</span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0Pd9hU2O7HHApdEzfQKDrGs5uaLULOaROwg9TYpti-ZGIfwmq2odQUzcez1ZY8hL224ECF97h1RzIA_r5PW9IGARN7r7azFblZpF6kCm9e5c2et8i4dUQSE9gFgDoj6OFB8MOZqcOtZdZgKumcLQCe_LNLB9AUc-Q1K-KNISjd6P1PL4BUzcqEBiwuz7l/s640/IMG_2637.JPG" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0Pd9hU2O7HHApdEzfQKDrGs5uaLULOaROwg9TYpti-ZGIfwmq2odQUzcez1ZY8hL224ECF97h1RzIA_r5PW9IGARN7r7azFblZpF6kCm9e5c2et8i4dUQSE9gFgDoj6OFB8MOZqcOtZdZgKumcLQCe_LNLB9AUc-Q1K-KNISjd6P1PL4BUzcqEBiwuz7l/s320/IMG_2637.JPG" width="320" /></a></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipRewbMU2ygFCrRibYI-UzkOXx_m_pGFkdhhPCNuiCrRR6kKnkynfoiqe7oaHrgGKym5h2Hai6bBbiZtv2hWb2_kROrq7_6Iy3vshLtVSXItAWyUqAsjS2TrDTLwrRV1zbnbwXi8GTitEqUvcvkx7FJcpp7loqZ2Sp_XVdro0VQlc32CuhtH5Nb5_sfwbU/s640/IMG_2651.JPG" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipRewbMU2ygFCrRibYI-UzkOXx_m_pGFkdhhPCNuiCrRR6kKnkynfoiqe7oaHrgGKym5h2Hai6bBbiZtv2hWb2_kROrq7_6Iy3vshLtVSXItAWyUqAsjS2TrDTLwrRV1zbnbwXi8GTitEqUvcvkx7FJcpp7loqZ2Sp_XVdro0VQlc32CuhtH5Nb5_sfwbU/s320/IMG_2651.JPG" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinpmkcCHfBuSwChElcOssZHwkP6_ZnZrvHsyguOV5H_RqZim694-cZcgoM4ARARdEQp0iBnnf3KuL8KGvG4u80OEmoP6sHglUWwCT1VQBpiNkS7EkNSjLZ7GkeRQos8g23D4iHBDkD5uBp1D2VrgmX-JI9Cl8xZoQJYHWPVFoweuFAyz1dyU5_epPTLZJS/s640/IMG_2694.JPG" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinpmkcCHfBuSwChElcOssZHwkP6_ZnZrvHsyguOV5H_RqZim694-cZcgoM4ARARdEQp0iBnnf3KuL8KGvG4u80OEmoP6sHglUWwCT1VQBpiNkS7EkNSjLZ7GkeRQos8g23D4iHBDkD5uBp1D2VrgmX-JI9Cl8xZoQJYHWPVFoweuFAyz1dyU5_epPTLZJS/s320/IMG_2694.JPG" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhS9Z_XRT3blHBZyLrGUPUeocLGkeSzjWuymV_kK8p3ZfO3jEqDrltG_PUeNzR2cc5NsOHgxyWzC24w4NrXiDFYocCZf-dEm0WNSNkLIbeEVsRPsgkvhaNLfBL2JI8JcAk_ggV8pcTqg3ARA6AwtG31arHj1oQ45YB7Q37WqB7lR56CC1zsFXLU9GvY_Tv5/s640/IMG_2585.JPG" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="480" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhS9Z_XRT3blHBZyLrGUPUeocLGkeSzjWuymV_kK8p3ZfO3jEqDrltG_PUeNzR2cc5NsOHgxyWzC24w4NrXiDFYocCZf-dEm0WNSNkLIbeEVsRPsgkvhaNLfBL2JI8JcAk_ggV8pcTqg3ARA6AwtG31arHj1oQ45YB7Q37WqB7lR56CC1zsFXLU9GvY_Tv5/s320/IMG_2585.JPG" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhu179UNfcy-PzH97aPtw8B5FN6IXIirFwszLF6hDNKONPzql8brVGPpoQWuKlemP_-UFEd9HeZnAMj2ra39tC54-JeqhF_b5buM7ny68A16I3hKsU0dhFOj9bMvxNNHK96FOcG9w4XHT_n0StJa72B35rA5C2xcKssOOZENT5aFwnMGpV5uyZhCxsOPYz3/s640/ECC%20-%20Shaputis%20.JPG" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhu179UNfcy-PzH97aPtw8B5FN6IXIirFwszLF6hDNKONPzql8brVGPpoQWuKlemP_-UFEd9HeZnAMj2ra39tC54-JeqhF_b5buM7ny68A16I3hKsU0dhFOj9bMvxNNHK96FOcG9w4XHT_n0StJa72B35rA5C2xcKssOOZENT5aFwnMGpV5uyZhCxsOPYz3/s320/ECC%20-%20Shaputis%20.JPG" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHXszc02-ojpWTwpbcGcmE5LoPRlfP0eoQxqZSx4hedHopejekO9WKhD5dSywXySuEZTjoFetP_-gBoDZCsstFAO4Bp6Ob0ws28lyKX9sFC1g4KPG-ZEEO5N3-ZnhrBQALuPQugmcA20a1QuC6PpJ1gL5efg0ZkGrx3LJpWxqEcp9f1H2bP5fee8uE9dSQ/s640/ecc-%20vanessa-red.JPG" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHXszc02-ojpWTwpbcGcmE5LoPRlfP0eoQxqZSx4hedHopejekO9WKhD5dSywXySuEZTjoFetP_-gBoDZCsstFAO4Bp6Ob0ws28lyKX9sFC1g4KPG-ZEEO5N3-ZnhrBQALuPQugmcA20a1QuC6PpJ1gL5efg0ZkGrx3LJpWxqEcp9f1H2bP5fee8uE9dSQ/s320/ecc-%20vanessa-red.JPG" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikoDsswo36Bs9pb2aFhhGgA4PyhZJgTaSKityls3uvhNW6uTa-AMbNdLLYh8s52_iwWS1nlkdJ-QbsOfiCkLPpYZ9YzJ3P9IS5AuhYTgm2WiF-OG0-Avjy2KqMZs2e7a8lR-OxtxPdDn888n00ur7aZAS3vMaR2COmb0O1VUbC4bTL3jdoj14RnvmVQckY/s640/IMG_2690.JPG" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikoDsswo36Bs9pb2aFhhGgA4PyhZJgTaSKityls3uvhNW6uTa-AMbNdLLYh8s52_iwWS1nlkdJ-QbsOfiCkLPpYZ9YzJ3P9IS5AuhYTgm2WiF-OG0-Avjy2KqMZs2e7a8lR-OxtxPdDn888n00ur7aZAS3vMaR2COmb0O1VUbC4bTL3jdoj14RnvmVQckY/s320/IMG_2690.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
Diane T. Letartehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16084529192330718661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409247758613539335.post-11238240013518024582024-01-23T21:36:00.000-08:002024-01-24T12:42:34.676-08:00Peopel v. Hardin (S277487) : Equal Protection issue for Youth Offenders and the fairly New CSC Justices<p><b>People v. Hardin (S277487): </b>
<b>YOUTH OFFENDER PAROLE HEARINGS Availability for LWOP who committed their crime while 25 years old or under. </b> </p><p>This case argues that excluding Hardin from youth offender parole consideration while allowing a 17-year-old who committed special-circumstance murder to be eligible violates his right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. </p><p>Basically---> Does Penal Code section 3051, subdivision (h), violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by excluding young adults sentenced to life without the possibility of parole from youth offender parole consideration, while young adults sentenced to parole-eligible terms are entitled to such consideration? </p><p> <b>The court granted review in January of this year.</b> It later asked for supplemental briefing that suggests it’s open to revising the way it analyzes equal protection claims. </p><p> NOTE: This case was filed on October 11, 2023, after Patricia Guerrero became Chief Justice.
<b> </b></p><p><b>The "open" Question is How will the New Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero impact potential criminal justice reform during her term? We present the facts you decide.</b> </p><p> Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero is making history as the **first Latina** to serve as the **29th Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court**. Her journey to the helm of the state's highest court is one marked by dedication, achievement, and a commitment to justice. Born in the Imperial Valley, California, Guerrero graduated magna cum laude from UC Berkeley and earned her Juris Doctor degree from Stanford Law School. </p><p> Throughout her career, Guerrero has championed issues of fairness, equality, and access to justice. She is known for her thoughtful and nuanced approach to legal issues, considering the broader societal impact of her decisions.
<b> </b></p><p><b>FUN FACTS:</b> She is a registered Democrat. She is married and has two children. She is fluent in Spanish. </p><p>It's important to note that Chief Justice Guerrero's impact is still unfolding. Assessing her long-term legacy will require observing her future decisions, initiatives, and how she navigates the complex legal and political landscape of California. However, her early commitment to diversity, access to justice, and thoughtful jurisprudence suggests a promising tenure that could leave a lasting mark on the state's legal system. </p><p>Guerrero's tenure has not been without its challenges. She has faced criticism from some conservative groups for her decisions on issues like affirmative action and criminal justice reform. </p><p> Guerrero has actively promoted diversity within the judicial system, appointing qualified judges from underrepresented communities to various courts. This includes the historic appointment of the first openly LGBTQ+ Justice to the California Supreme Court, Justice Leondra Kruger </p><p>She has also emphasized the importance of civic education and public engagement with the judiciary, particularly focusing on reaching out to marginalized communities. </p><p> </p><p> LET'S KEEP A CLOSE WATCH ON THE <u><i>PEOPLE V. HARDIN</i></u> CASE FOR OUR LWOP YOUTH OFFENDERS ! </p><p> </p><p> HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!
</p>Diane T. Letartehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16084529192330718661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409247758613539335.post-36889378149813334752023-10-06T18:49:00.000-07:002023-10-06T18:49:18.805-07:00Senate Bill 81 on the Governor's desk as of september 21, 2023: he has until October 18 to sign or veto it<p></p><p><u><b> SB81 GOVERNOR SIGNING DEADLINE status:</b></u></p><p><b>Governor Newsom has not signed SB81 as of October 6, 2023. He has 12 days to act on the bill, so the deadline for him <u>to sign or veto it</u> is October 18, 2023.</b></p><p><b><br />If he does not act on the bill by the deadline, it will become law without his signature.</b></p><p><b><br />Governor Newsom has not yet indicated whether he will sign or veto SB81.<br /><br /></b></p><p></p><p><b>IN GENERAL: </b><br /></p><p>Governor Newsom has 12 days to sign, veto, or allow a bill to become law without his signature. This 12-day period begins on the day the bill is presented to the Governor. If the 12th day is a Sunday or a holiday, the Governor has until the next working day to act.</p><p>However, there is an exception to this 12-day rule for bills that are passed in the last 30 days of the legislative session. For these bills, the Governor has 30 days to act. If the Governor does not sign or veto a bill within the allotted time, the bill becomes law without his signature.</p><p>It is important to note that the Governor can issue a pocket veto on bills that are presented to him during the last 10 days of the legislative session. A pocket veto is a type of veto that the Governor can use to kill a bill without actually vetoing it. To pocket veto a bill, the Governor simply does not sign it within the 10-day period. If the Governor pocket vetoes a bill, it does not become law.</p><p><br />Since 1979, there has not been a successful veto override in the California Legislature.<br /><br /></p><p><b> </b></p><p><b> LAST (5) ACTIONS:</b></p><p><b>On September 21, 2023 in the Senate:
<u>
Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m.</u></b><u> </u></p><p><b>On September 14, 2023</b> in the Senate:
Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 29. Noes 9.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling. </p><p><b>On September 13, 2023</b> in the Senate:
In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending. </p><p><b>On September 13, 2023</b> in the Assembly:
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. </p><p><b>On September 7, 2023</b> in the Assembly:
Ordered to third reading.
Read third time and amended.
Assembly Rule 69 suspended.
</p>Diane T. Letartehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16084529192330718661noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409247758613539335.post-49693694065291638662023-09-12T20:47:00.001-07:002023-09-18T14:47:37.679-07:00BEWARE: BPH STATES THAT “MEDICAL RECORDS” ARE NOT OFF LIMITS FOR USE AT PAROLE HEARINGS!<p>There have been many inquiries about legal authority for the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) to access the medical records of incarcerated people for parole consideration purposes. </p><p> In short, all those asking if the Board can access medical and mental health treatment records for their parole suitability hearing—the answer is, Yes. <b> Is it legal?…. that can still be debated given that the Parole Hearing transcripts “themselves” are Public Record and thus [in our opinion] indirectly violates the Confidential Medical records laws. </b></p><p><b>The main short term take away</b>: if your loved one is seeing a clinical psychologist, psychiatrist or even a Medical Doctor within CDCR (and/or their Mental Health division) then they should know to <b>“be careful” what is disclosed to the Doctor.</b> <b>The Doctor’s NOTE will not be Confidential </b>and will be used at the Parole Hearing against them. These Doctors’ notes usually come in as “quotes” from the medical record during the Comprehensive Risk Assessment (CRA) file review by the BPH psychologist, who then writes their report for the Board (a.k.a. Psychological Report).</p><p> ====================== </p><p>BELOW is a summary of why BPH thinks that they are allowed to violate the inmates right by reviewing the “confidential” private Medical Records. </p><p><b>BPH’s Chief Counsel’s legal position is that People (inmates) appearing before the board do not have a right to keep their medical records private from the Board, as the Board must review all relevant and reliable evidence when making parole decisions. </b></p><p>To the extent people appearing before the Board asserts a right to privacy of medical information, the board’s authority to access the medical records of incarcerated people for purposes of parole consideration is permitted by both the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and California law. In fact, California law requires that an incarcerated person’s records be made available for the board to decide when a person can be safely allowed to return to society, and this exception obviates the need for a signed disclosure under HIPAA.
The board may access medical records to satisfy its regulatory and statutory mandates. California Code of Regulations, title 15, sections 2281 and 2402, require the board to consider all relevant and reliable information for the board to meet its statutory obligations under Penal Code sections 3041, 4801, and 5075.1. </p><p> Medical records may contain relevant and reliable information about an individual’s suitability for parole. For example, under the elderly parole program ordered by the three-judge panel in Plata/Coleman v. Newsom and the separate elderly parole program in Penal Code section 3055, the board must consider an elderly offender’s diminished physical capacity. The medical records are a critical source for this information. </p><p> Similarly, when applying the youth offender factors required by Penal Code sections 3051 and 4801, subdivision (c), the board must look for subsequent growth and increased maturity of an individual, evidence of which is often found in the treatment and programming records contained in a medical file. Further, programming information for some people is kept in their medical file, as is evidence of mental state, conditions of treatment or control, and further information that bears on the person’s suitability for release. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, §§ 2281, subd. (b); 2402, subd. (b).) Since disclosure of medical records is required under these legal mandates, HIPAA is satisfied. </p><p>When considering “the purpose for which the information is sought” — which here is to determine whether an incarcerated person would pose an unreasonable risk to public safety in the free community — the scope is not limited in the request because the board must consider all relevant and reliable information when making such a parole decision. </p><p> If an entity other than the board was to limit its access to records, and thereby make decisions as to what information is relevant to parole suitability, the entity would violate the board’s purpose and authority. No agency other than the board determines what information may be relevant to making parole decisions. </p><p>Mental health treatment records are accessible to the BPH. <b>BPH’s Chief Counsel’s summarized some basic reasons (below) for the board’s access to an inmate’s medical/mental health records: </b></p><p> Elderly parole must give special consideration to the diminished physical condition, if any, have reduced the elderly inmate’s risk for future violence (PC 3055), <br /></p><p>Programming records for those in mental health treatment programs (where compliance with treatment is often considered programming), <br /></p><p>Information relevant to future risk due to illness/impairment, <br /></p><p>Information related to mental state, conditions of treatment and control and further information that bears on the person’s institutional behavior and suitability for release, <br /></p><p>Information on substance abuse based on the person’s history
Information needed to ascertain reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
<b> </b></p><p><b>BOTTOM LINE</b>:
<b>BPH’s Chief Counsel’s legal position</b> is that an incarcerated person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their medical records when the records are needed for parole consideration purposes. Even if there was some privacy expectation, the board has the explicit authority to utilize an incarcerated person’s medical records for purposes of parole consideration under the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act HIPAA and Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA).
</p>Diane T. Letartehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16084529192330718661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409247758613539335.post-42603310742292520082023-08-07T15:55:00.000-07:002023-08-07T15:55:12.433-07:00LSA offers free "live" Seminars for Lifers to prepare for their Parole Hearing; at RJ Donovan August 25, 26, 27: Tell your RJD Loved ones to sign up.<p> Life Support Alliance (LSA) returning to Prison to give their impactful Lifer Workshop: Get your Loved ones involved. </p><p>Now that Covid19 is subsiding and more institutions are allowing Program providers into the prisons to bring "live" presentations; Life Support Alliance (LSA) is getting invitations to bring their impactful workshops. Tell Your Loved Ones to sign-up for the classes before it fills up.</p><p> IT IS FREE and conducted on the YARDS at the prison.<br /></p><p>SAVE THE DATES:</p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>RJ Donovan San Diego; </b><b>Friday, Saturday, and Sunday starting August 25* to 27 of 2023</b>. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">** Watch for a Special RJD Appearance by <span style="color: red;"><a href="http://www.dianeletarte.com" target="_blank">Attorney Diane Letarte</a> </span> at one or more sessions.<br /></span></p><p>The idea is to try to present the class to as many inmates, by visiting as many Yards as possible, in the RJD institution during those 3-days.
Some of the workshops include: Unraveling a Parole Hearing,
Connecting the Dots, the Amends Project (e.g. how to write apology letters), among others.</p><p>LSA travels to the prisons to give their workshops <b>in-person </b>to all Long Term Inmates (i.e. Lifers, Youth Offender, Elderly hearings, DSL, ISL) that are going to a Parole Suitability Hearing. The workshop will help them get prepared for the Parole Hearing.
LSA staff will go where they have the most interested people. This month of August 2023; it will be at <b>RJ Donovan institution.</b></p><p>Specifically LSA will normally prioritize the institutions who register the most memberships (i.e. interest)! </p><p> If you are a Loved Ones in the free community then sign up to be a Free member of the Life Support Alliance (LSA). You will get the Free Newsletter (Lifer*Line) each month in your email inbox. The other way is to text the word “JOIN” to their automated system at 916-702-7344; which will return a link. Use the link to fill out the membership registration, right from the phone. </p><p>The membership “count” will indicate which Prisons should get the in-person workshop first.
You can also go to LSA’s website at <a href="http://www.lifesupportalliance.Org" target="_blank">www.lifesupportalliance.Org</a>. Scroll to the bottom of the page and hit the “JOIN” button to get the same form to fill out. Fill out the form with the inmates’ name and the prison location. </p><p> LSA can be contacted via their email address info@lifesupportalliance.org and </p><p>LSA
PO BOX 277 </p><p>Rancho Cordova, </p><p>CA 95711 </p><p> </p><p>Thank You to LSA for all of what they do to assist the inmate population get home.</p>Diane T. Letartehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16084529192330718661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409247758613539335.post-33377348326957681122023-07-03T19:58:00.075-07:002023-07-04T16:08:48.267-07:00Senate Bill 81 would be a game changer for all Parole Candidates that get Denied AFTER reaching their Minimum Eligible Parole Date (MEPD)<p> <!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp/>
<w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
<w:Word11KerningPairs/>
<w:CachedColBalance/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
</p><div align="center">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse: collapse; mso-padding-bottom-alt: 0in; mso-padding-top-alt: 0in; mso-table-layout-alt: fixed; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184;">
<tbody><tr>
<td style="padding: 0in .75pt 0in .75pt; width: 230.55pt;" width="461">
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-transform: uppercase;">Amended IN Assembly </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> <span style="text-transform: uppercase;">June 21, 2023</span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding: 0in .75pt 0in .75pt; width: 230.55pt;" width="461">
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-transform: uppercase;">Amended IN Senate </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> <span style="text-transform: uppercase;">May 23, 2023</span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding: 0in .75pt 0in .75pt; width: 230.55pt;" width="461">
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-transform: uppercase;">Amended IN Senate </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> <span style="text-transform: uppercase;">March 22, 2023</span></span></p></td></tr><tr style="mso-yfti-lastrow: yes;"><td style="padding: 0in .75pt 0in .75pt; width: 230.55pt;" width="461"></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "Arial Unicode MS","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">CALIFORNIA
LEGISLATURE— 2023–2024 REGULAR SESSION</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 40px; text-align: left;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-transform: uppercase;"> Senate Bill No. 81</span></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><img height="2" src="file:///C:\Users\USER\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.gif" width="624" /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">
<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
</span></p>
<div align="center">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse: collapse; mso-padding-bottom-alt: 0in; mso-padding-top-alt: 0in; mso-table-layout-alt: fixed; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184;">
<tbody><tr>
<td style="padding: 0in .75pt 0in .75pt; width: 227.2pt;" width="454">
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Introduced by Senators Skinner and
Becker</span></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-lastrow: yes;">
<td style="padding: 0in .75pt 0in .75pt; width: 227.2pt;" width="454">
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
January 12, 2023</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><img height="2" src="file:///C:\Users\USER\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.gif" width="624" /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">An act to amend Section 3041 of, and to <b>add Section 3041.8
to, the Penal Code</b>, relating to parole.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"></span></p>
<p></p><p> <br /></p><p>Senate Bill 81 (SB 81) is a bill that was introduced in the California State Senate in 2023. The bill would add Section 3041.8 to the Penal Code, relating to parole. Note that this Bill will <u>not </u>be retroactive. Please note that our July summary may still be Amended beyond the posting of our BLOG. As of July 3rd, 2023, below is what SB81 looks like.<br /></p><p>If your loved one has gone to the Board and has been denied at least once, then most likely by the next hearing; the Minimum Eligible Parole Date will have been exceeded. It may be a good idea to postpone their 2023 parole hearing until 2024.<b> Make sure to review this with an attorney, before postponing the next hearing</b>. This can be case specific depending on the circumstance of the case. <a href="http://www.dianeletarte.com" target="_blank"><b>If </b>the Law Office of Diane T. Letarte</a> is retained, we take into account this strategy based on the specific factors of our client's case. </p><p>SB 81 is currently in the California State Assembly. If it is passed by
the Assembly and signed by the Governor, it would go into effect on
January 1, 2024. <br /></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">Here are some of the key provisions of SB 81: </span></b><br /></p><p>* Specifically, SB 81 would require the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) to notify a parole candidate who has been denied parole that they have a right to petition for habeas relief from a court. </p><p>* A parole candidate may have the petition heard in <b>either the county of conviction or in the county in which the parole candidate is incarcerated. </b>To be allowed to pick the jurisdiction to file the Writ (WHC) can be very helpful to avoid some very conservative counties! </p><p>* SB 81 would also establish that a<b> parole candidate who has reached their minimum eligible parole date has made a fundamental vested interest in being released on parole</b>. This includes any ONE of the minimum parole dates such as MEPD, YPED, and EPED for youth offenders and elderly parole hearings. This means a parole candidate has made a prima facie case for relief and the <u>reviewing court may not
summarily deny a petition for writ of habeas c</u>orpus filed pursuant to
this section.</p><p>* SB 81 would require a court reviewing a petition for habeas relief based
on a parole denial to uphold the decision to deny parole only if the
court finds, <b>by a preponderance of the evidence</b>, that the person presents a current, unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. <br /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>* The Bill would require the court to, upon request, <b>appoint FREE counsel to a parole candidate</b> who has reached their minimum eligible parole date, who petitions the court for habeas relief after being denied parole. </p><p>* The Court<b> may order whatever relief as the case may require</b>, including
an Order for a new parole hearing, with or without limitations on what
evidence the Board of Parole Hearings may consider. <br /></p>Diane T. Letartehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16084529192330718661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409247758613539335.post-11737413093115289612023-06-01T17:47:00.002-07:002023-06-01T17:47:28.587-07:00In re Van Houten (5/30/23): youngest of Manson's devotees found the Court of Appeal on her side: challenging Governor Gavin Newsom’s reversal of her 2020 grant of parole<p>In re Van Houten Docket: B320098 (Second Appellate District)
Opinion 5/30/2023. </p><p><u><b> BACKGROUND INFORMATION ====== </b></u></p><p> A California appeals court overruled Governor Gavin Newsom on Tuesday to find Leslie Van Houten, one of Charles Manson's murderous "family" of followers, entitled to parole after more than 50 years in prison for her part in the cult's 1969 killing spree. Van Houten has spent more than half of her life in prison for her part in the murder (then 19, a Youth Offender) of Rosemary and Leno La Bianca, a supermarket executive. </p><p> A jury convicted Van Houten in 1971 of two counts of first-degree murder and one count of conspiracy to commit murder. She was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole. </p><p>Van Houten, now 73, the youngest of Manson's devotees, has been recommended for early release by the state parole board on five occasions since 2016, but was denied three times by Newsom and twice by his predecessor, fellow Democrat Jerry Brown. </p><p>This decision appears to marks the first time a court has overruled a governor's denial of parole to a Manson follower. The California appeals court said that Leslie Van Houten, who participated in two killings at the direction of cult leader Charles Manson in 1969, should be released from prison on parole.</p><p> As we remember --> Manson, died in prison in 2017 at age 83, and directed his mostly young and female followers to murder seven people, including actress Sharon Tate, in August 1969 in what prosecutors said was part of a plan to incite a race war.
I</p><p><u><b> IN COURT ======= </b></u></p><p>Petitioner (Leslie Van Houten ) petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging Governor Gavin Newsom’s reversal of her 2020 grant of parole. Petitioner is serving concurrent sentences of seven years to life for the 1969 murders which she committed with other members of a cult led by Charles Manson. This is the fourth time a governor has reversed Petitioner’s parole. </p><p>The Second Appellate District granted Petitioner’s petition. The court held that there is no evidence to support the Governor’s conclusions. The court explained that Petitioner provided an extensive explanation as to the causative factors leading to her involvement with Manson and the commission of the murders, and the record does not support a conclusion that there are hidden factors for which Petitioner has failed to account. </p><p>The court wrote that the Governor’s finding of inconsistencies between Petitioner’s statements now and at the time of the murders fails to account for the decades of therapy, self-help programming, and reflection Petitioner has undergone in the past 50 years. The historical factors identified in the comprehensive risk assessment (CRA) are the sort of immutable circumstances the California Supreme Court (In re Lawrence, 2008) has held cannot support a finding of current dangerousness when there is extensive evidence of rehabilitation and other strong indicators of parole suitability, all of which Petitioner has demonstrated. </p><p>Newsom now has 10 days to request that California Attorney General Rob Bonta petition the California Supreme Court to stop her release. If the state Supreme Court denies it, the appellate court’s decision to parole Van Houten stands and it could be a matter of weeks before she is set free under parole,
</p>Diane T. Letartehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16084529192330718661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409247758613539335.post-69338225886106455202023-05-15T18:38:00.000-07:002023-05-15T18:38:44.005-07:00People v. Pierce (2/28/23); Court must review CDCR's letter to recall sentence, base on AB 1540 recall Presumption<p>Case Name: People v. Pierce (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1074, Case #: B322890, District: 2 DCA, Division: 6, Opinion Date: 02/28/2023 </p><p>The order summarily denying CDCR’s recommendation for recall of defendant’s 2011 stipulated sentence was reversed based on the new recall and resentencing procedures. The defendant entered into a plea agreement under which he received a stipulated term of 19 years 4 months. CDCR asked the trial court to recall and resentence defendant based on the amendment to Penal Code section 12022.53, allowing discretion to strike a gun use enhancement. Recall was denied. Defendant appealed. Held: Reversed. </p><p>AB 1540, effective January 1, 2022, amended and moved the recall and resentencing provisions of former Penal Code section 1170(d)(1) to a new section, which was then renumbered to section 1172.1. Where recommended by CDCR, there is now a presumption in favor of recall and resentencing of a defendant, which may only be overcome if a court finds the defendant is an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. Resentencing may only be denied after hearing and appointment of counsel. </p><p>Further, section 1172.1, subdivision (a)(3)(A) provides that, regardless of whether the initial sentence was imposed after a plea agreement, the trial court may reduce a term of imprisonment by modifying the sentence. Here, the appropriate remedy was to reverse and remand the matter, so that the trial court can consider CDCR’s recommendation to recall and resentence defendant under the new and clarified procedure and guidelines.</p><p> </p><p>Editor's NOTE:
A Major thank you (and shout out) for all the Central California Appellate Program (CCAP) work in summarizing major cases for the month. This is a reprint for Education purposes. We review the Summary of cases and re-print the case that is more relevant to our CDCR population.<br /></p><p>Full case at: <a href="https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B322890.PDF" target="_blank">https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B322890.PDF</a></p>Diane T. Letartehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16084529192330718661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409247758613539335.post-63055410034598970852023-04-28T18:50:00.000-07:002023-04-28T18:50:45.013-07:00Per Gov. Newsom's new Prison mission: San Quentin State Prison is to become San Quentin Rehabilitation Center<p>SAN QUENTIN – </p><p>Last month Governor Gavin Newsom, announced that <b>San Quentin State Prison</b> — the oldest and most notorious prison in California and home to the largest “death row” in the United States — will be transformed from a maximum-security prison into a one-of-a-kind facility focused on improving public safety through rehabilitation and education. The prison, will be renamed “<b>San Quentin Rehabilitation Center,”</b> focused on teaching those incarcerated men who are on the verge of release how to live and succeed in modern society. </p><p>Newsom stated “We take the next step in our pursuit of true rehabilitation, justice and safer communities through this evidence-based investment, creating a new model for safety and justice, and safer communities through this evidenced-backed investment, creating a new model for safety and justice —the California Model—that will lead the nation,” Newsom announced from the grounds of San Quentin. </p><p>In an announcement last month, Newsom outlined with some enthusiasm, how his administration plans to “spin” corrections in California 180 degree by creating a “California model” institution, modeled on the Scandinavian concept of correctional facilities, adapted for the unique qualities of California society. </p><p> The Governor intends to accomplish this by not only a name change, but by physically modifying San Quentin, remodeling the old, condemned row cells and a currently vacant PIA warehouse " into a center for innovation focused on education, rehabilitation and breaking cycles of crime," Newsom's office said. <b>The goal is the have the new facility re-made and operational by 2025 and comes with an initial price tag of $20 million. </b></p><p><u>HISTORIC ASPECT: </u></p><p>San Quentin State Prison (SQSP) is a maximum security state prison for men run by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). It is located north of San Francisco in the San Quentin, California community, which overlooks the San Francisco Bay. San Quentin State Prison was the first permanent prison in California, making it the state's oldest prison. It was the largest death row facility in the state and conducted all of the state's executions.
The historic Face-Lift effort at San Quentin, never pursued at this scale in the United States, it will serve as a nationwide evidence-backed model to advance a more effective justice system that builds safer communities. San Quentin is the state’s oldest penal institution, established in 1852 with a beginning population of 68 inmates. Long the home of death row, over the years the walls have witnessed 422 executions, including 15 women. </p><p><u>PRIOR NOTORIOUS LIFER INMATES: </u></p><p>Charles Manson (now deceased: died from cardiac arrest resulting from respiratory failure, brought on by colon cancer) —was the most famous inmate on San Quentin death row; convicted on seven counts of first-degree murder. Sirhan Sirhan—Robert Kennedy's assassin - mow serving a life sentence at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego </p><p><u>INMATE TRANSFERS: </u></p><p><b>Those inmates remaining in the death row quarters will be transferred to other facilities, as many condemned inmates have been over the last few years.</b> The facility will become a largely Level II facility, with some individuals with higher points accepted on the basis of behavioral overrides, according to early reports. Initially, officials expect to see about 500 transfers out of San Quentin to other facilities throughout the state. </p><p>While the new programming at San Quentin (SQ) will focus on job training centers, life skills and is envisioned as a ‘last stop’ for those approaching release from prison (2 years pre-release time frames have been mentioned) administration <b>officials have assured Lifers will <u>not </u>be excluded from the new version of SQ. </b></p><p><b> </b></p><p>EDITOR’S NOTE:
We can only hope that the real change will be accomplished by both the changes in the physical facility, programs offered, and the dedication of the inmates and the CDCR Staff to make the change really work. Time will Tell….
</p>Diane T. Letartehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16084529192330718661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409247758613539335.post-57985570270051006082023-03-14T13:23:00.003-07:002023-03-14T13:52:58.668-07:00Life Support Alliance (LSA) returning to Prison to give their impactful Lifer Workshop: Get your Loved ones involved.<p> <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp/>
<w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
<w:Word11KerningPairs/>
<w:CachedColBalance/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span color="windowtext" style="font-size: 14pt;">Now that
CoVid is subsiding and more institutions are allowing Program providers in to
bring presentations; <b><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><a href="https://www.lifesupportalliance.org/" target="_blank">Life SupportAlliance (LSA)</a> </span></b>is getting invitations to bring their impactful workshops
to more and more prisons (in-person).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span color="windowtext" style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span color="windowtext" style="font-size: 14pt;">Some of the
workshops include: Unraveling a Parole Hearing,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span color="windowtext" style="font-size: 14pt;">Connecting the
Dots, the Amends Project (e.g. how to write apology letters), among others.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span color="windowtext" style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">LSA travels to the prisons to
give their workshops to all Long Term Inmates (i.e. Lifers, Youth Offender,
Elderly hearings, DSL, ISL) that are going to a Parole Suitability Hearing, in
the future. The workshop will help them get prepared for the Parole Hearing.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">LSA staff will go where they have the most interested
people. </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Specifically LSA will prioritize
the institutions who register the most memberships!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">If you are a Loved Ones in the free community then</span></b><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> sign up to be a Free member of the Life Support
Alliance (LSA). You will get the Free Newsletter (Lifer*Line) each month in your
email inbox. The other way is to text the word “JOIN” to their automated system
at 916-702-7344; which will return a link. Use the link to fill out the
membership registration, right from the phone. The membership “count” will
indicate which Prisons should get the in-person workshop first.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">You can also go to LSA’s
website at <a href="https://www.lifesupportalliance.org/" target="_blank">www.lifesupportalliance.Org</a>.
Scroll to the bottom of the page and hit the “JOIN” button to get the same form
to fill out. Fill out the form with the inmates’ name and the prison location.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">LSA can be contacted via
their email address <a href="mailto:info@lifesupportalliance.org">info@lifesupportalliance.org</a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>and</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">LSA</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">PO BOX 277</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Rancho Cordova, CA 95711</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Thank You to LSA for all of
what they do to assist the inmate population get home.</span></p>
Diane T. Letartehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16084529192330718661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409247758613539335.post-89692964438727602542023-02-13T20:08:00.000-08:002023-02-13T20:08:09.383-08:0012/27/22 People v. White (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1229: A Franklin hearing does not reopen a final judgment or sentencing.<p>A Franklin hearing does not reopen a final judgment or sentencing; it is an “evidence preservation process” to gather data for future determination of parole, at a parole suitability hearing.</p><p> ATTORNEY LETARTE NOTE: <b>Franklin Hearing (FH) [youth offender documentation] can be very helpful if done correctly. Unfortunately these reports vary in usefulness. Some Social Worker (LCWS) can do a very good job at providing the Psychosocial background of the inmate. They will interview the inmate, family and siblings to write their report. On occasion a psychologist may write the report. If this is the case it is best to provide the FH psychologist a copy of the </b><b><b>Comprehensive Risk Assessment (CRA), if possible ahead of the interview, to avoid conflicting facts. </b>Then, if properly documented it can be provided as a supplemental report to the Board's Comprehensive Risk Assessment (CRA) done by the Board's own psychologist. WARNING: Many times inmates do not disclose the "bad" upbringing to the Board's psychologist but then provide a total different picture [bad upbringing] to the FH psychologist or Social Worker. The conflicts in the social history will be a point of concerns by the Board. Be a step ahead and try to prevent any inconsistent statements between the reports. <br /></b></p><p><b>================================================<br /></b></p><p>Another big thank you to CCAP for the summary of this 12/27/2022 case. Republish here for Education purpose.</p><p><b>FACTS:</b> </p><p>In 2006, White was convicted of second degree murder and other offenses based on an accident he caused driving while intoxicated. He requested and received a Franklin hearing (People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261) to place on the record mitigating factors in anticipation of a youthful parole hearing. (See Pen. Code, § 3051.) </p><p>On appeal, he argued the Franklin hearing reopened his case, which would allow application of Assembly Bill No. 518. <b>Held: Affirmed.</b> </p><p>At the time of White’s sentencing, Penal Code section 654, former subdivision (a) required a trial court to impose the longest possible term when that section applied to two convictions. <b>AB 518, effective January 1, 2022, amended section 654, to allow the trial court to impose sentence on either conviction.</b> Though this amendment applies retroactively to non-final cases, it does not apply to White, because his Franklin hearing was not an extended portion of the original sentencing. Though Franklin hearings follow the procedures in Penal Code section 1204, and California Rules of Court, rule 4.437, which are related to sentencing, they are not the basis for Franklin hearings. Penal Code section 1203.01, under which post judgment Franklin motions are filed, is separate statutory authority for such hearings and not part of the defendant’s sentence. (See In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439.) </p><p><b>A Franklin hearing does not reopen or affect the judgment</b>.
AB 518 does not apply retroactively to final convictions. White argued that AB 518 should be applied retroactively to all convictions, whether or not final. Criminal laws generally apply prospectively. An exception to this rule was recognized in <u><i>In re Estrada </i></u>(1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, which held that, absent a clear intent to the contrary, new laws that mitigate punishment are presumed to apply to all cases not yet final. Nothing in AB 518 reflects the Legislature intended to alter the Estrada presumption, as it is “silent on the question of retroactivity and provides no mechanism by which youth offenders whose convictions are final can petition for resentencing.”
Failure to apply AB 518 to final cases does not deny defendants equal protection of the law. “Because Assembly Bill 518’s differing treatment of defendants whose judgments are not final does not involve a fundamental right, and defendant does not contend the measure discriminates against members of a suspect class, <b>it need only survive rational basis review to be constitutional.</b>” </p><p>Under that standard, equal protection is denied only where there is no rational relationship between the disparity of treatment and some legitimate governmental purpose. That purpose exists where the Legislature or the voters decline to make new laws that reduce criminal sentences fully retroactive in order to assure that penal laws continue to have their intended deterrent effect. </p><p><a href="https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C095640.PDF" target="_blank"> Full Opinion Here : https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C095640.PDF </a><br /></p>Diane T. Letartehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16084529192330718661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409247758613539335.post-19815709172541259252023-01-02T21:01:00.000-08:002023-01-02T21:01:14.377-08:0012/6/2022 People v. E.M. Court’s jurisdiction to resentence under PC1172.1 was not eliminated by CDCR’s letter rescinding its request to recall the inmate’s sentence<p>Case Name: People v. E.M. (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 1075 , District: 6 DCA , Case #: H049467
Opinion</p><p>A big thank you to CCAP for the summary of this 12/6/2022 case. Republish here for Education purpose.<br /></p><p><u><b>Case Holding: </b></u></p><p>Trial court’s jurisdiction to resentence an inmate under Penal Code section 1172.1 was not eliminated by CDCR’s letter rescinding its request to recall the inmate’s sentence, which was sent while the inmate’s appeal was pending. In 2019, CDCR recommended resentencing E.M. under what is now section 1172.1 based on Senate Bill No. 1393, which restored the trial court’s discretion to strike enhancements for prior serious felonies imposed under Penal Code section 667. After appointing counsel, the trial court declined to recall the sentence on the basis that E.M.’s judgment was final before the legislation was enacted (he was convicted in 1984)<b>. He appealed. </b></p><p>The Attorney General initially agreed that E.M. case should be remanded for resentencing. However, after briefing, CDCR issued a new letter to the trial court stating it was rescinding its recommendation of recall and resentencing. The Attorney General withdrew its previous concession and argued the appeal was now moot. <b>Held: Reversed and remanded.</b> </p><p>After a defendant has been committed to prison, the trial court may recall the defendant’s sentence and resentence him at any time based on the recommendation of the secretary of CDCR. After analyzing section 1172.1 and the legislative history, the Court of Appeal concluded CDCR’s rescission letter did not eliminate the trial court’s jurisdiction to recall and resentence E.M. and did not moot the appeal. The language of the statute implies the trial court’s power to recall continues indefinitely once it receives a recommendation from CDCR and there is no language that gives CDCR the power to rescind its recommendation. The trial court acted when it issued the order denying recall, and in doing so, the court exercised jurisdiction over the matter long before CDCR issued its rescission letter. Allowing CDCR to moot the appeal under the circumstances of this case would present separation of power concerns and it is it is unlikely the Legislature intended for CDCR to intrude this far into the courts’ jurisdiction over sentencing matters. </p><p>[<b>CCAP Editor’s Note</b>: The Court of Appeal did not decide whether CDCR has the power to rescind a recommendation soon after issuing it and where the trial court has not yet acted on it; where a subsequent change in the prisoner’s circumstances may support rescission; or where the initial recommendation was erroneously issued due to administrative improvidence.] </p><p> The trial court erred in denying recall on the ground that a new law did not apply retroactively in a case that was final and remand is required for the trial court to consider recall and resentencing under section 1721.1. E.M. argued the trial court misconstrued the law when it denied recall and erred in several other ways based on the procedural requirements of newly enacted section 1172.1. The Court of Appeal agreed the trial court erred. Effective January 1, 2022, Assembly Bill No. 1540 renumbered the recall and resentencing provisions of former Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(1) and amended the language governing the procedural requirements, which are now set forth in section 1172.1. Section 1172.1 provides in part, “The court, in recalling and resentencing under this subdivision, shall apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and apply any changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.” (Pen. Code, § 1172.1, subd. (a)(2).) Section 1172.1, subdivision (a)(4) sets forth a list of factors—some permissive and some mandatory—for the court to consider in recalling and resentencing. The statute includes a presumption in favor of recall and resentencing, which may only be overcome if the court finds the defendant is an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety as defined in Penal Code section 1170.18, subdivision (c). (Pen. Code, § 1172.1, subd. (b)(2).) Even before the enactment of AB 1540, Courts of Appeal held that former section 1170, subdivision (d) allowed for recall and resentencing based on recent changes in law that would be ameliorative with respect to cases that were final on appeal. The court reviewed recent decisions addressing the two statutes and concluded the trial court erred by denying recall on the erroneous premise that SB 1393 did not apply to E.M.’s case. On remand, section 1721.1 will apply. </p><p> [<b>CCAP Editor’s Note</b>: The court declined to decide whether section 1172.1 controlled in this appeal or whether former section 1170, subdivision (d) applied. (Compare People v. McMurray (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1035, with People v. Pillsbury (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 776, 782 and People v. Cepeda (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 456.) </p><p> </p><p> The full opinion is available on the court’s website:</p><p> <a href="https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/H049467.PDF" target="_blank">https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/H049467.PDF </a></p>Diane T. Letartehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16084529192330718661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409247758613539335.post-27848464098162946682022-12-09T17:54:00.000-08:002022-12-09T17:54:07.685-08:00 California moves to shutdown a 3rd State prison --- CDCR (Prison and Yard Closures): California 2023 <p>On December 6, 2022, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) announced the closure of Chuckawalla Valley State Prison (CVSP) in 2025 and exiting of California City Correctional Facility (Cal City). </p><p>CDCR will terminate the Cal City contract in March 2024 and end the use of that facility as a state prison. The state will not renew it's lease of the California City location, which is a leased facility, but staffed wholly by state employees, both free staff and CCPOA. </p><p>The potential closure of several additional prisons was included in Governor Gavin Newsom’s 2022-23 budget with an eye toward fiscal responsibility. It is the third prison that Gov. Newsom’s administration has moved to shutdown.
This is most likely because of California’s shrinking state prison inmate population. Shutting five State prisons would save $1.5 billion per year. </p><p><b>POPULATION of California Inmates by year: </b></p><p>2011 - 160,000 inmates </p><p>2019 - 120,000 inmates </p><p>2022 - so far we are at about 94,000 inmates. </p><p> </p><p> CVSP will close by March 2025. </p><p>CVSP Chuckawalla Valley State Prison is in the city of Blythe.
It’s sister facility, Ironwood State Prison (ISP), literally next door on the same land span will stay open. </p><p>There will be closure of YARDS at several other locations listed below: </p><p>Folsom Women's Facility (small area of Old Folsom) closed by next month, January, 2023 </p><p>CMC-W, California Men's Colony in San Luis Obispo, west yard by winter of 2023 </p><p>PBSP-C yard, Pelican Bay State Prison in Crescent City, winter of 2023 </p><p>CRC-A facility, California Rehabilitation Center, Norco, A yard, January 2023 </p><p>CIM-D facility, California Institute for Men, Chino, D yard, spring 2023 </p><p>CCI-D facility, California Correctional Institution, D yard, summer 2023 </p><p><b>Inmates will have to be transferred to other CDCR facilities. We hope this rapid movement toward reducing prisons doesn't bring us back to the overcrowding </b>that brought a class action almost 10-years ago, over medical and mental health care. </p><p><b>February 10, 2014, the Three-Judge Court ordered CDCR to reduce the in-state adult prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity.
</b></p>Diane T. Letartehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16084529192330718661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409247758613539335.post-61766373009843331452022-11-11T21:17:00.000-08:002022-11-11T21:17:11.997-08:0010/18/2022 People v. Hardin: Youth Offender (under 26) with LWOP are still entitled to Franklin Hearing.<p> </p><p>People v. Hardin , District: 2 DCA , Division: 7 , Case #: B315434
Opinion Date: 10/18/2022 </p><p><b>Case Holding: </b></p><p>Denying a youth offender parole hearing to individuals sentenced to LWOP for offenses committed when they were between the ages of 18 and 25 violates equal protection.</p><p> In 1990, Hardin, then 25 years of age, was convicted of special-circumstance felony murder and sentenced to LWOP. In 2021, Hardin filed a motion seeking <u>to develop a record for an eventual youth offender parole hearing (a.k.a Franklin Hearing).</u> <u>The trial court denied the request</u>, finding Hardin was statutorily ineligible for a youth offender parole hearing under Penal Code section 3051, subdivision (h). Hardin appealed, arguing that section 3051 violated his right to equal protection. </p><p><b>Held: Reversed and remanded. </b></p><p>An individual convicted of an offense committed when he was a young adult (25 years old or younger) and for which the sentence is LWOP, is not eligible for a youth offender parole hearing (Pen. Code, § 3051, subd. (h)) or otherwise entitled to parole consideration. In contrast, an individual convicted of an offense committed when he was a young adult, and for which the sentence is an indeterminate term of 25 years to life, is eligible for release on parole at a youth offender parole hearing at the beginning of his 25th year of incarceration. (Pen. Code, § 3051, subd. (b)(3).) </p><p>After analyzing section 3051 and relevant case law, the Court of Appeal concluded that young adult offenders sentenced to LWOP are similarly situated to all other young adult offenders for purposes of section 3051. The purpose of current section 3051 is that the distinctive attributes of youth, which mitigate culpability and offer the possibility of growth and change, apply equally to young adults up to age 25. Accordingly, there is no rational basis for the Legislature to exclude otherwise similarly situated offenders from a youth offender parole hearing based solely on the crime committed or the sentence imposed. </p><p>Hardin is entitled to a youth offender parole hearing based on his right to equal protection and, as such, is also <u>entitled to a hearing to assemble<span style="color: red;"><b>[Fn.1</b></span>] information concerning his youth-related mitigating factors.</u> </p><p> <b>DISPOSITION</b><br />The order denying Hardin’s motion for a Franklin hearing is reversed. The cause is remanded with directions to schedule the hearing and to conduct all appropriate further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.<br /></p><p><span style="color: red;">==============================================================</span></p><p><span style="color: red;">Fn1</span>: </p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="color: red;">Recognizing that gathering information on youth-related mitigating factors for a youth offender parole hearing is a task more easily accomplished at the time of sentencing rather than decades later at a parole hearing, the Supreme Court in People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261, 283-284 held a defendant eligible for such a hearing must be permitted at the time of sentencing to make a record of those factors, a proceeding that has since become known as a <b><span style="font-size: small;">Franklin proceeding.</span></b> The Court in In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, 458 held a juvenile offender with a final judgment could move in a postjudgment proceeding under section 1203.01 (rather than through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus) to present evidence of youth-related factors.</span><br />=============================================================================</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;">NOTE: The Court of Appeal concluded that distinguishing between juvenile and young adult offenders
sentenced to LWOP does not violate equal protection. <strong>(2)</strong> The
court noted that the Legislature may decide the youth parole eligibility date
for a young adult sentenced to LWOP should be different from the 25th year of
incarceration.]</span> <br /></span></p><p><br /></p><p>The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: <a href="https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B315434.PDF " target="_blank">https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B315434.PDF </a></p><p> </p><p>- Thank you for CCAP's summary of the HARDIN case. <br /></p>Diane T. Letartehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16084529192330718661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409247758613539335.post-18565297233443732222022-10-07T18:57:00.002-07:002022-10-07T18:57:52.862-07:00CDCR has collaborated with trans METRO to provide free bus transportation to all 34 adult prisons- California<p><span style="font-size: large;">This October post is just a quick IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT for all the Families of the Incarcerated. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">=========================================== <br /></span></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="color: red;"><a href="https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/" target="_blank"> The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) </a></span>has collaborated with <span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.transmetro.org/CDCR/" target="_blank"><span style="color: red;">Transmetro</span> </a> </span>to provide free bus transportation to all 34 adult prisons in California as part of the department's commitment to enhancing access to visitation for incarcerated people and their loved ones.</p><p>TransMETRO is hosting the bus trip under a contract with CDCR.
TransMETRO's ride-request system has been updated. To request a bus trip please submit an e-mail to: <span style="color: red;">cdcr@transmetro.org</span> up to three weeks before your visit. </p><p>Please include the following information in your email: </p><p> • First and last name of any visitor(s) accompanying you on the trip </p><p> • First and last name of incarcerated person you are visiting. Please include CDCR number if known</p><p> • Name of prison you are visiting. Use <span style="color: red;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/" target="_blank">CDCR's Inmate Locator</a></span> t</span>o verify the location in which your loved one resides. </p><p> • Date of visit </p><p> • Region you would like to be picked up from: </p><p><span> </span><span> </span>o Central: Riverside, Pasadena, Lancaster </p><p><span> </span><span> </span>o Southern: San Diego, Long Beach, Bakersfield </p><p><span> </span><span> </span>o Northern: Redding, Chico, Sacramento, Stockton </p><p><span> </span><span> </span>o Bay Area: Richmond, Oakland, San Leandro, San Jose
Seats are reserved on a first-come, first-<span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>serve <span></span>basis. </p><p>Please visit the <span style="color: red;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/visitors/transmetro-bus-service/" target="_blank">Frequently Asked Questions</a> </span></span>section below for answers to all of your questions regarding riding transMETRO.
A week prior to a scheduled trip, confirmed riders will receive an email with important details including pickup and drop-off locations and times. </p><p>Potential visitors must also separately make a visiting appointment via the Visitation Scheduling Application (VSA). Directions for utilizing VSA to make a visiting reservation can be found <span style="color: red;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/visitors/schedule-visitation/how-to-schedule-a-video-visit-using-vsa/" target="_blank">here</a>.</span> </span></p><p> </p><p><b>David Maldonado </b></p><p>Deputy Chief, Office of External Affairs (OEA)</p><p> Office of Public and Employee Communication (OPEC) </p><p>CA. Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation (CDCR)
</p>Diane T. Letartehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16084529192330718661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409247758613539335.post-55725423809898962102022-08-29T20:30:00.000-07:002022-08-29T20:30:30.605-07:00SB 1437: People v. Vang , (8/5/2022): the meaning of the term “actual killer.” District: 3 DCA , Case #: C090365 <p>This article is republish (for educational purposes) from the CCAP organization. Central California Appellate Program (CCAP) is a nonprofit law office. </p><p>A big thank you for the analysis of the case below. </p><p>================================================================== <br /></p><p> <span style="font-size: medium;"> <b><i><u>People v. Vang</u></i>,</b> District: 3 DCA , Case #: C090365
<b>Opinion Date: 8/5/2022
</b></span></p><p><b> Case Holding:</b>
The term “actual killer” in Penal Code section 189, subdivision (e), means the person who personally committed the act that directly caused the victim’s death.
Vang was convicted of numerous offenses, including the first degree felony murder of his wife with a kidnapping-murder special circumstance. The prosecution’s theory was that Vang kidnapped his wife, who was killed when she jumped out of his moving truck to escape. The prosecution argued that even if Vang did not personally kill the victim he still was liable for her murder because he committed an inherently dangerous felony—the kidnapping—that proximately caused her death. </p><p><b>On appeal,</b> Vang argued the jury was misinstructed to allow conviction based on an invalid theory of general causation. Held: Reversed and remanded.
Senate Bill No. 1437 narrowed the circumstances under which a defendant can be convicted under the felony-murder rule. It amended section 189 by adding subdivision (e), which provides that a participant in the perpetration of a qualifying felony is liable for felony murder only if he is the actual killer, acted with the intent to kill, or was a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life, as described in Penal Code section 190.2, subdivision (d). </p><p><b>The dispute in this case was over the meaning of the term “actual killer.”</b> The legislative history of SB 1437 supports the conclusion that the Legislature understood the term “actual killer” to mean the person who “personally” commits the homicidal act. Here, the jury instructions did not provide a proper definition of “actual killer” and allowed the jury to find Vang guilty of felony murder, and to find the special circumstance true, if it determined he “caused” the victim’s death based on general causation principles. This was an invalid legal theory and reversal was required. </p><p>Additionally, because the evidence was insufficient to support the theory of guilt on which the jury was instructed, Vang cannot be retried on the felony-murder theory or the felony-murder special circumstance.</p><p> [CCAP Editor’s Note: The court expressed no opinion on whether double jeopardy would prohibit Vang’s retrial for murder under another theory.] </p><p> </p><p>The full opinion is available on the court’s website here:
<a href="https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C090365.PDF" target="_blank">https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C090365.PDF</a>
</p>Diane T. Letartehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16084529192330718661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409247758613539335.post-26174334091157969052022-07-15T19:29:00.001-07:002022-07-15T19:29:49.896-07:00Saturday 8/27/22: Seminar from LSA (Life Support Alliance) in So. CA.: First since the 2020 Pandamic <p>
July is the month for the editor to take a break so no official BLOG. </p><p>Instead of our normal BLOG ----> <br /></p><p>We thought we would pass along the long awaited Seminar from LSA (Life Support Alliance)- Lifer Family Seminar Outlook for 2022.
All are invited to attend, including Family of the Incarcerated, new attorneys, and everyone else interested in helping their Loved Ones (LO)
that is incarcerated for a long term.
<b> </b></p><p class="font_9" style="line-height: 1.4em;"><b> Sponsor of the seminar: LSA </b><span style="font-size: small;"><span><span class="color_11"> </span></span><a href="mailto:staff@lifesupportalliance.org" target="_self"><span><span class="color_11"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">staff@lifesupportalliance.org</span></span></span></a></span></p><p><em>David and Vanessa can be reached at : </em></p><p class="font_8" style="font-size: 23px;"><span style="font-size: 23px;"><span class="color_11">P. O. Box 277</span></span></p>
<p class="font_8" style="font-size: 23px;"><span style="font-size: 23px;"><span class="color_11">Rancho Cordova, CA. 95741</span></span></p><p><em></em></p><p class="font_9" style="font-size: 23px; line-height: 1.4em;"><span style="font-size: 23px;"><span class="color_11">916-402-3750</span></span></p><p class="font_9" style="font-size: 23px; line-height: 1.4em;"><span style="font-size: 23px;"><span class="color_11"></span></span><a href="mailto:staff@lifesupportalliance.org" target="_self"><span style="font-size: 23px;"><span class="color_11"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></span></a></p><p><em> =======================================================</em></p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li><b>Hear from advocates, Attorneys, and paroled Lifers </b></li><li><b>A Day of Learning and Support</b></li><li><b> New Laws and Policies
Resource for Lifers and Families</b></li><li><b>Insight and Building a Parole Plan </b></li><li><b>This Seminar fee covers Materials and Lunch</b> </li></ol><p>So many people were asking about a Southern California seminar from LSA. This will be their first since the 2020 Pandemic. </p><p> $50 at the door or you can register on the link for Early Bird Special of $45 here: </p><p><a href=" https://www.lifesupportalliance.org/events-1/2022-yorba-linda-lifer-family-seminar " target="_blank">2022-yorba-linda-lifer-seminar Registration</a></p><p><b>WHEN</b>: Saturday
8/27/2022 8:00 am to 3:30pm </p><p><b>WHAT</b>:
Seminar from LSA in Southern California </p><p><b>WHERE</b>: Parking ON-Site </p><p> Richfield Comm. Church </p><p> 5320 Richfield Rd </p><p> Yorba Linda, Ca 92886 </p><p> ======================================================================</p><p></p><p>Feedback from the LSA Sacramento seminar in June 2022:</p>
<p><em>At this moment I can just say it was divine. It was Clear to Me,
God was pleased. Thank you, David, and Vanessa, I loved the seminar. It
exceeded my expectations. It was perfect in every way: The speakers, the
group leaders. the attendees, the attorneys in attendance. You and
Vanessa, I felt the love with which you planned and executed the
seminar.</em></p><p><em> </em><em>David and Vanessa, GREAT WORK again. (Penny S.)</em></p><p><em> </em></p><p><em> ========================================================</em></p><p><em> </em></p><p class="font_8" style="font-size: 23px; text-align: center;"><span style="text-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.498039) -1px -1px 0px, rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.498039) -1px 1px 0px, rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.498039) 1px 1px 0px, rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.498039) 1px -1px 0px;"><span class="color_29"><span style="font-size: 23px;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">LSA MISSION STATEMENT</span></span></span></span></p>
<p class="font_8" style="font-size: 23px; text-align: center;"> <span style="text-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.498039) -1px -1px 0px, rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.498039) -1px 1px 0px, rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.498039) 1px 1px 0px, rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.498039) 1px -1px 0px;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span class="color_29"><span style="font-size: 23px;">Our
mission is to identify the needs and concerns of the greater lifer
population and community, to assist lifers in becoming suitable for
parole and articulating that suitability to the Board of Parole
Hearings. To educate the public and encourage dialogue between
stakeholder groups on rehabilitation and reentry and to assist lifers
and their families in understanding the parole system. We are the voice
and presence of lifers in the community.</span></span></span></span></p>Diane T. Letartehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16084529192330718661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409247758613539335.post-86290372554506719682022-06-07T15:29:00.005-07:002022-06-07T15:37:43.345-07:00WINNER of Attorney Letarte’s 2021 Parole Hearing Scholarship, was found SUITABLE on 5/19/22<p>As a reminder and per our previous December 2021 Parole Hearing SCHOLARSHIP BLOG; the Winner received Attorney Letarte’s PRO BONO (free) representation at their 2022 Parole Hearing. The Scholarship was made available throughout the 35 California State Prisons, as posted in the 2021 Prison Newsletters that endorsed our Scholarship. The two Newsletters were: ECC and POSSE as described below. </p><p> In the last several 2022 months, our law office was preparing the WINNER of the Parole Hearing Scholarship for his Board hearing. He followed all of our presentation strategies and did the requested homework including, re-writing each specific Relapse Prevention Plan(s), Apology letters, Book Reports, and Essays. All parties attended the VIDEO Parole Hearing including our client, who hails from CTF-Soledad. After several hours of questioning by the Panel, my client appeased all the Panel’s concerns and it was found that he did NOT pose an unreasonable threat of violence, if release to the free community. Of Course, there is a 150-day waiting period from the BPH Review Unit and the Governor’s office for the Decision to become Final. </p><p> A Big Congratulations to Anthony Stevenson, especially after being discouraged to enter the Scholarship’s writing contest, by some negative thinking peers. To his credits he found the courage to not only ENTER the Scholarship but actually WIN it! He relayed that he had never won anything in his life! The best part of it was that when he went to the Board with Attorney Letarte, and after some deliberation by the Commissioners, he was found SUITABLE on 5/19/2022. </p><p>We now have authorization to post the NAMEs of the Winner as well as the runner-ups from our Parole Hearing 2021. </p><p> PRIZEs: </p><p>1st Place Winner received a Pro Bono representation by Attorney Letarte at his 2022 Parole Hearing. </p><p>2nd and 3rd place winners did receive the revised TIPS document (authored by Attorney Letarte, consisting of over 40+ pages) to assist with their own preparation at their next parole hearing. In addition, they received our Law Office’s 2022 Wall Calendar to keep track of all their important dates. </p><p></p><p><b> 2021 SCHOLARSHIP NAMES for the 2022 Parole Hearing:</b> </p><p> 1st Place Winner was represented [Pro Bono] by Attorney Diane T. Letarte*** </p><p><b> 1st Place WINNER </b>from Correctional Training Facility (CTF) State Prison,
Anthony Stevenson was admitted in October 1994 and is currently 48 years old.
His Parole Eligible Date was 2/2011; Has been in the Board cycle since 2009.</p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Anthony Stevenson</span> was found SUITABLE for Parole on 5/19/2022 !</b></p><p><b>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <br /></b></p><p><b>Although Attorney Letarte did <u>not </u>represent the runner-ups they deserved recognition for their writing essay skills that showed insight into their crime. <br /></b></p><p><b>2nd Place</b> (1st runner-up) from Ca. Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (SATF-COR) </p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Richard Newman</b></span> was admitted in June 1997 and is currently 51 years old.
His Parole Eligible Date was 4/2004; Has been in the Board cycle since 2004 (denied 3 years in 2022) and returning in 2025<br /></p><p><b>3rd Place</b> (2nd runner-up) from Chuckawalla Valley State Prison (CVSP) </p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Russell Farden</span> </b>was admitted in March 2009 and is currently 43 years old.
His Parole Eligible Date was 10/2021; His Initial Board Hearing was postponed to late 2022 </p><p><b>NOTE OF INTEREST:</b> We also heard back from some others [non-winner] scholarship applicants stating that the Scholarship writing essay made them gain more self-introspection. With that new gained insight they were better prepared for their Board Hearing(s) and some were found suitable when they went to their 2022 Board Parole Hearing.
============================================================== </p><p>We may entertain doing a 2022 Scholarship for a 2023 hearing, depending on the availability of Attorney Letarte.
Please keep your eyes open for the next potential Scholarship listed (on this BLOG) and in the <b>ECC or POSSE newsletters.</b> The newsletters are usually found at the Prison library for Free or via a subscription to either newsletter listed below. You can write to subscribe to them. </p><p>ECC P.O. Box 5010 Irvine, CA 92619 </p><p> POSSE P.O. Box 900188 Palmdale, CA 93590
============================================================== </p><p> The OLD 2021 CRITERIA for the Scholarship Application WAS as stated below. </p><p>One can anticipate <u>similar criteria</u> for a potential 2022 Parole Hearing Scholarship for a 2023 hearing. </p><p>1) No CDC-115 (RVRs) , in the last 5 years </p><p>2) Psychological Evaluation (a.k.a. CRA) risk rating is either a Low or a Moderate </p><p>3) You are NOT currently represented by a private attorney or a Law School Program
</p>Diane T. Letartehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16084529192330718661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409247758613539335.post-49352858094973252392022-05-16T12:23:00.000-07:002022-05-16T12:23:26.169-07:00California v. Delgado (4/29/22) Youth offenders who are not eligible (i.e. 3X’er) for Early Parole Consideration are still entitled to Franklin Hearings to preserve evidence<p><b>California v. Delgado Docket: G059650 (Fourth Appellate District), Opinion Date: April 29, 2022. </b> </p><p>The Fourth Appellate District reversed a trial court order and remanded. The court held that youth offenders who are not eligible for early parole consideration under Penal Code §3051 are nonetheless entitled to Franklin hearings to preserve evidence for their eventual, non-§3051 parole hearings. Although <b>Delgado's Three Strikes (3X) sentence rendered him ineligible for a youth offender parole hearing (YOPH), he was nonetheless entitled to an opportunity to preserve evidence of mitigating. </b></p><p>The issue presented by this appeal was whether youthful offenders who are statutorily ineligible for early parole consideration were nevertheless entitled to a "Franklin" proceeding to preserve evidence for their eventual parole hearing. </p><p> During his early 20’s, appellant was involved in three separate criminal incidents. s a result of those incidents, appellant was convicted of kidnapping for robbery and multiple counts of robbery, burglary, false imprisonment and illegal gun possession. He was also found to have personally used a firearm during the offenses and suffered a prior strike conviction. The trial court sentenced him to 59 years to life in prison under the “Three Strikes” law. </p><p> In 2020, appellant requested a Franklin proceeding to present mitigation evidence in anticipation of his youth offender parole hearing (YOPH). However, the trial court correctly determined appellant was not eligible for a YOPH because he was sentenced under the Three Strikes law. Therefore, it denied his request for a Franklin proceeding. Appellant admitted he was statutorily ineligible for a YOPH because he was sentenced under the Three Strikes law. However, he contended he is entitled to a YOPH – and a concomitant Franklin proceeding – as a matter of equal protection. Although the Court of Appeal rejected appellant’s equal protection argument, both parties concluded he was entitled to a Franklin proceeding under the standard rules applicable to all parole hearings. The trial court's judgment was reversed and the case remanded for such a proceeding. </p><p>BOTTOM LINE: The Legislature's reference to the above statute made clear that it intended the criteria set forth in §4801(c) to apply broadly to all parole hearings, not just youth offender parole hearings under §3051. <b>Consequently, even though Delgado is not entitled to a youth offender parole hearings, the parole board will still---someday---have to consider his diminished capacity and subsequent maturation in assessing his suitability for parole.
</b></p>Diane T. Letartehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16084529192330718661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409247758613539335.post-47728288640529850972022-04-28T19:06:00.000-07:002022-04-28T19:06:26.253-07:00Franklin Hearing for youth offender : People v. Benzler (12/2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 743<p>Case Name: People v. Benzler (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 743, District: 3 DCA, Case #: C092779
Opinion Date: 12/21/2021 </p><p><b>FRANKLIN HEARING</b> (in General): </p><p>A Franklin hearing is a supplemental sentencing hearing for defendants who were convicted for a controlling offense when they were under 26 years of age (Youth Offender in California). The hearing gives these inmates an opportunity to provide additional mitigating evidence related to their youth to the court. Franklin proceeding: the purpose of which is to allow the offender to assemble evidence at or near the time of the crime rather than years later when it may prove difficult to reconstruct. That evidence can then be used by the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH a.k.a. BPT) when it holds the eventual Youth Offender Parole Hearing (YOPH). </p><p><b>NOTE</b>: The Public Defender will normally do the Franklin Hearing for the inmate. Different Counties execute this process differently. On occasion a Psychologist or a Social Worker will interview the inmate and/or the family to gather background information. A report will be produced and attached to a Motion for a Franklin Hearing, filed with the Court. If your Love One was a Youth Offender, s/he may qualify for this hearing. Call the Local Public Defender for free representation. You can also hire a private attorney but it seems like the Public Defender for a specific County may have more free resources at their disposal to assist.<br /></p><p>The name for a Franklin hearing comes from the California Supreme Court case, <u><i>People v. Tyris Lamar Franklin. </i></u></p><p> Evidence provided during Franklin Hearings (FH) often deal with the inmates’: </p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li> young age at the time of the offense and related factors, </li><li> upbringing and any negative influences in the defendant’s early years, </li><li> mental and emotional state, </li><li> maturity, </li><li> juvenile record, </li><li> ability to understand that the offense was wrong, </li><li> diminished culpability, when compared to adults, </li><li> hallmark features of youth at the time of the offense, and </li><li> subsequent growth and increased maturity while in prison </li></ol><p>============================================================= <br /> <br />CASE HOLDING: </p><p>Trial court erred in summarily denying defendant’s petition for a Franklin proceeding, as it set forth a prima facie case for a hearing. In 2011, when defendant was 18 years old, he killed the victim. The jury hung on whether defendant committed second degree murder and he pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter. “In 2020, defendant filed a ‘Motion for Franklin Hearing’ in the trial court, under the original caption and case number, seeking a Franklin hearing under [Pen. Code] section 1203.01, and citing [<b>In re Cook</b> (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439].” The request was summarily denied. Defendant appealed. <b>Held: Reversed.</b> </p><p>Senate Bill No. 260 (effective 1/1/2014), created statutes regarding parole eligibility for offenders who committed their crimes at a young age. The statutes have been amended to apply to offenders who were under the age of 26 at the time of the offense. “In Cook, our Supreme Court explained the proper avenue to seek a Franklin proceeding for a final conviction is through a motion under section 1203.01,” bearing the original caption and case number. Defendant “was sentenced before section 3051 had been extended to his age group and before Franklin was decided, and thus had no opportunity or reason to place the relevant information on the record. This made him eligible for a Franklin proceeding,” the purpose of which is to allow the offender to assemble evidence at or near the time of the crime rather than years later when it may prove difficult to reconstruct. </p><p>“Here, defendant’s motion met the initial requirements for eligibility.”
There is no evidence defendant has had an opportunity to place evidence relevant to a Franklin hearing on the record, and the passage of time since his conviction cannot be the sole reason for disqualifying him from a Franklin proceeding, absent affirmative evidence supporting disqualification on this ground. The trial court did not provide any rationale for denying defendant’s motion, <b>so there is no indication why it felt defendant was ineligible for a hearing. The denial of defendant’s motion was reversed. </b></p><p>=============================================================== <br /></p><p>The full opinion <u><b>may </b></u>still be available<a href="https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions-slip.htm?Courts=Y " target="_blank"> on the court’s website:</a> </p><p>https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C092779.PDF </p><p> </p><p>A Big Thank you to CCAP for the summary of <i><u>People v. Benzler</u></i> case. It is re-published here for education purpose.
</p>Diane T. Letartehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16084529192330718661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409247758613539335.post-42245993984194080412022-03-29T22:01:00.000-07:002022-03-29T22:01:11.057-07:00Elderly Parole law AB3234: new Regulations for Elderly Parole finally enacted [by BPH] under 15 CCR 2449.40 <p>Even though the Elderly Parole law AB3234 became effective last year. BPH is finally getting around to enacting Sections 2449.40 - 2449.43 [of Title 15], governing parole consideration hearings for elderly inmates. </p><p>It may take CDCR a while to review all the inmates that qualify under AB3234 <u><b>Elderly Law</b></u> becasue CDCR recently received the Regulations from the Board Of Parole Hearings (BPH). </p><p>The important sections of the new regulations enumerating the Elderly Inmate Factors are under Section 2449.43. The factors will be given Special Considerations during the Elderly Parole Hearings.</p><p>They are in summary as follows: </p><p>§ 2449.43. Elderly Inmate Factors. </p><p> (a)<b> <u>Age.</u></b> Consideration of an elderly inmate’s age includes the following: </p><p>(1) Cognitive decline and its impact on an elderly
inmate’s ability to process information, convert thought to action, the ability to learn, the ability to plan, recall or reorganize information, organize information, control impulses, execute a task, incorporate feedback, alter a strategy, sustain complex attention, or to calm down when emotionally aroused; </p><p> (2) Physiological changes that decrease the motivation to commit crime or be violent. </p><p> (b)<u> <b>Time Served</b></u>. The impact of long term confinement of elderly inmates includes, consideration of the following: </p><p> (1) Reduced criminal propensity; </p><p>(2) Alteration of attitudes and beliefs over time; </p><p>(3) Evidence of prosocial routines; </p><p> (4) Social conformity; </p><p> (5) Detachment from crime producing environments and peers. </p><p>(c) <u><b>Diminished Physical Condition</b>.</u> The diminished physical condition of elderly
inmates includes, consideration of the following: </p><p>(1) The capability of an inmate to physically commit crimes and violence; </p><p>(2) Chronic or terminal illness; </p><p> (3) Evidence of sensory impairment due to visual, hearing or speech impairment; </p><p> (4) Inability to ambulate or difficulty in ambulating without an ambulation assistive device; </p><p>(5) Nursing Care Acuity; </p><p> (6) Diminished mental capacity; </p><p>(7) Assistance with daily living activities that includes but is not limited to, feeding, bathing, dressing, grooming, work, homemaking, or communication; </p><p>(8) Permanent incapacitation due to medical, physical, or mental health condition, or any other condition that results in permanent incapacitation; and </p><p> (9) Other evidence of diminished physical condition. </p><p>=================================================================</p><p>PENDING CHANGES TO THE BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS can be seen at: <a href="https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/bph/statutes/reg-revisions/" target="_blank">the CDCR website </a><br /></p><p> </p><p>Pursuant to the requirements of Government Code section 11346.8 (c). and section 44 of Title I of the California Code of Regulations, the Board of Parole Hearings is providing notice of changes made to Regulation Number 21-04, proposed sections 2449.40, 2449.41, 2449.42, and 2449.43. Additionally. pursuant to the requirements of Government Code sections 11346.8( d). 11346. 9( a)( 1), and 11347.1. the Board of Parole Hearings is providing notice of the addition of a document to the rulemaking file to make available for public comment and inspection. </p><p>The document added to the rulemaking file is as follows: </p><p>Supplement to the Initial Statement of Reasons
</p><p><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/bph/wp-content/uploads/sites/161/2021/09/BPH-RN-21-04-elderly-parole-propsed-texted-filed-with-oal.docx.pdf" target="_blank">Regulatory Text Document</a> </span></span>is available for public inspection at the Board's office located at
1515 K street, 6th Floor, Sacramento. California 95814, from March 10, 2022,
through March 25. 2022 between the hours of 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM. This
document is also available to view on the board's website at: Regulatory
Changes - Board of Parole Hearings (ca.gov). </p><p>If you have any comments regarding the proposed changes or the Supplement to
the Initial Statement of Reasons. the Board will accept written and electronic
email comments <b>between March 11, 2022 and March 25, 2022.</b> </p><p>All written and electronic email comments must be submitted to the Board no later than March 25, 2022, and addressed to: </p>Chancellor Veal, Staff Attorney <br />Board of Parole Hearings <br />P.O. Box 4036
Sacramento, CA 95812-4036 <br />E-mail: BPH.Regulations@cdcr.ca.gov <p>All written comments received by March 25,2022, which pertain to the
indicated changes or the Supplement to the Initial Statement of Reasons will be reviewed and responded to by the Board's staff as part of the compilation of the rule making file. Please limit your comments to the modifications to the text and the Supplement to the Initial Statement of Reasons. </p>Diane T. Letartehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16084529192330718661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409247758613539335.post-30545055498981567552022-02-21T23:03:00.003-08:002022-02-21T23:03:52.182-08:00People v. Williams (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 1029: Parole Revocation Report required for a Lifer who Violates ParoleCase Name:<u><i><b> People v. Williams (</b></i></u>2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 1029, District: 1 DCA , Division: 1 , Case #: A159914 Opinion Date: 11/23/2021 <br /><br />A big Thank You to the CCAP folks who review and summarize many of the Appellate cases. The Case Holding below is from CCAP and reproduce here for Education Purpose.<br /><br />This case is specific to Lifers who violate Parole after being release to the free community. Yes, this happens! (but not too often). All Parole Revocation Hearings are no longer done in the county jail by Commissioners, they are reviewed in Court with the District Attorney having the choice to file a Revocation Petition. As of 2013, the BPH no longer adjudicate revocation proceeding but as a LIFER, BPH still controls the case.<br /><br />If the parolee is subject to Life parole under sections 3000(b)(4) and 3000.1 for murder or designated sex offenses, and the court finds the parolee has violated the law or a condition of parole, the parolee "shall be remanded to the custody of [CDCR] and the jurisdiction of the [BPH] for the purpose of future parole consideration." (§ 3000.08(h).) Thereafter the BPH will schedule a hearing within 12 months to determine parole eligibility. (§ 3000.1(d).). These hearing are known as <b>Reconsideration Hearings</b> within BPH (a.k.a. PC 3000). They are held every year and <b><u>not </u></b>subject to Marsy’s Law, which have the 3 to 15 year denial periods, at a Parole Suitability Hearing.<br />======================================================<br /><br />Here the Parolee was no longer in Custody. The Court chose to make a ruling; Hence, exercised its discretion to address the merits because the issue is of continuing public interest and likely to recur yet evade appellate review.<br /><br /> Case Holding: Even where imprisonment is mandatory following a parole violation by a person serving a life term, the court must obtain the parole agency's written report under Penal Code section 1203.2, subdivision (b)(1). <br /><br />Defendant was on parole from a life term sentence. He was found in violation of parole and remanded to prison, as required by Penal Code section 3000.08, subdivision (h). On appeal, defendant argued the trial court erred in refusing to refer the matter to the parole agency for a written report (Pen. Code, § 1203.2, subd. (b)(1)) before ruling on the revocation petition. <br /><br /> Held: Appeal dismissed as moot, but merits reached. Where a parole revocation petition is filed by the parole agency, section 3000.08, subdivision (f) requires that the petition be accompanied by “a written report that contains additional information regarding the petition, including the relevant terms and conditions of parole, the circumstances of the alleged underlying violation, the history and background of the parolee, and any recommendations.” <br /><br /> Where, as here, the revocation petition is filed by the prosecutor, a report need not accompany the petition. However, a report is still required. Under section 1203.2, subdivision (b)(1), once the court receives a revocation petition filed by the district attorney, it must refer the petition to the parole agency for a written report, and it must consider that report before ruling on the petition. The statute contains no exception for inmates serving life sentences. Although section 3000.08, subdivision (h) makes revocation mandatory if the court finds a lifetime parolee has violated parole, requiring a report in the case of lifetime parolees is not absurd or pointless. While the court cannot dismiss the petition, it is conceivable that the contents of the report could persuade the district attorney to withdraw the petition. The report also includes other background information that might assist in the trial court's determination whether parole was violated. <br /><br /> <br /><br /> The full opinion is available on the court's website here: https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A159914.PDF<br /><br />Diane T. Letartehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16084529192330718661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409247758613539335.post-79286975014365181352022-01-25T21:01:00.000-08:002022-01-25T21:01:51.400-08:00People v. Jenkins (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 924 (10/25/21 ): Trial Court erred by not issuing an order to show cause<p> A big Thank You and shout out to Central California Appellate Program (CCAP) for their regular Case summaries efforts. <strong>Central California Appellate Program (CCAP)</strong> is a nonprofit law office, created pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.300(e), serving the <a href="http://www.courts.ca.gov/3dca.htm">Third </a>and <a href="http://www.courts.ca.gov/5dca.htm">Fifth District Courts of Appeal <em>(external links)</em></a>,
and dedicated to improving the quality of indigent representation in
criminal, juvenile, dependency and mental health appeals. </p><p>===================================================================== <br /></p><p>This posting is specific to Penal Code section 1170.95 petition. As a quick review: This statute states that if you <span class="atOwb UMOHqf">have a <b>felony murder conviction</b> under the old law</span> but if tried under the new law, a jury or judge would not have convicted you, then you can petition the court for resentencing.</p><p>============================ C A S E L A W ========================<br /></p><p><i><u><b>People v. Jenkins </b></u></i>(2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 924 , District: 4 DCA , Division: 2 , Case #: E075886 </p><p>Opinion Date: 10/25/21 <br /></p><p> <b>Case Holding: </b> </p><p>Trial court erred by summarily denying Penal Code section 1170.95 petition without issuing an order to show cause because the petition stated a prima facie case for relief and the record of conviction does not refute the prima facie showing.
In 2002, a jury convicted Jenkins of second degree murder and kidnapping. The jury also found true a witness-killing special circumstance, which required the jury to find an intent to kill. The trial court struck the special circumstance finding because the jury was only supposed to return a finding if it found Jenkins guilty of first degree murder. </p><p>The Court of Appeal affirmed. In 2019, Jenkins’s section 1170.95 petition was summarily denied. Jenkins appealed. Held: Reversed and remanded with directions to issue an order to show cause. In conducting the prima facie review of a section 1170.95 petition, the court takes the petitioner’s factual allegations as true, unless the record of conviction contains facts refuting them. Jenkins’s petition contained the required factual allegations to make a prima facie showing that he was entitled to relief.
The Court of Appeal here reviewed the record of conviction and concluded it does not exclude the possibility that the jury convicted Jenkins under the natural and probable consequences theory. </p><p>Although the sentencing court implicitly found Jenkins acted with intent to kill when applying Penal Code section 654 (and the Court of Appeal determined this finding was supported by substantial evidence on direct appeal), <b>this does not preclude relief because the finding was made by a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt.</b> Additionally, the witness-killing special circumstance does not preclude relief because the trial court struck the finding. </p><p>Finally, the jury instruction on the natural and probable consequences doctrine erroneously identified murder as the target offense.
But a later paragraph of the instruction told the jurors they did not have to agree unanimously on the target offense, so the instruction as a whole did not necessarily show Jenkins was convicted on a murder theory that is still valid. </p><p> The full opinion is available on the court's website here: https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/E075886.PDF </p><p> </p><p>A big THANK YOU to CCAP for summarizing the Jenkins case.<br /></p>Diane T. Letartehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16084529192330718661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409247758613539335.post-11095452715437083142021-12-30T17:51:00.002-08:002021-12-30T17:51:38.883-08:00WINNER of the 2021 Scholarship from the Law Office of Diane T. Letarte hails out of CTF: The Winner gets a PRO BONO 2022 Parole Hearing representation <h4 style="text-align: center;"></h4><p>In the last several months, our law office was running a Parole Hearing Scholarship Essay competition for any inmate to win a Pro Bono Parole Hearing Representation by Attorney Diane T Letarte. This was available throughout the 35 California State Prisons, as posted in the Prison Newsletters that endorsed our Scholarship. The two Newsletters were: ECC and POSSE as described below.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.dianeletarte.com" target="_blank">Attorney Diane T. Letarte </a>spent several days reading all the Essays that were turned in and grading them on a 1 to 10 scale: 10 being the Best Essay. The grades ranged from 3.5 to 9.0 out of a 10 point grading system. The essays reflected different level of self-introspection in the responses by the inmates. We do not have authorization yet to post the NAME of the Winner (at the writing of this BLOG) but we provide the following results based on Prison Location, admission date, and their current age.</p><p></p><p><b>PRIZEs: </b></p><p><b>1st Place Winner</b> receives a Pro Bono representation by Attorney Letarte at his 2022 Parole Hearing. </p><p><b>2nd and 3rd place winners</b> will receive the revised TIPS document (authored by Attorney Letarte, consisting of over 40 pages) to assist with their own preparation at their next parole hearing. In addition, they will get our Law Office complimentary 2022 Wall Calendar to keep track of all their important dates. <br /></p><h4 style="text-align: center;"><u><span style="font-size: medium;">PAROLE HEARING 2021 SCHOLARSHIP RESULTS </span></u></h4><h4 style="text-align: center;"><u><br /></u></h4><div style="text-align: left;"><b> 1st Place WINNER</b> from <a href="http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Facility-Locator/CTF" id="LocatorPublicPageContent_DetailsView1_HyperLink1" target="_blank">Correctional Training Facility (CTF) State Prison,</a></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"> <span> </span>He was admitted in October 1994 and is currently 48 years old.</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><div style="text-align: left;"><span> </span><span> </span><span>His </span>Parole Eligible Date was 2/2011; Has been in the Board cycle since 2009 <br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>2nd Place (1st runner-up)</b> from </span><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Facility-Locator/SATF" id="LocatorPublicPageContent_gvGridView_HyperLink1_0">California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (SATF-COR)<br /></a></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: small;"> <span></span> He was admitted in June 1997 and is currently 51 years old.</span></p></div><div style="text-align: left;"><p><span style="font-size: small;"><span> </span><span> </span><span>His </span>Parole Eligible Date was 4/2004; Has been in the Board cycle since 2004</span></p><p><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></p><div style="text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>3rd Place (2nd runner-up)</b> from </span><a href="http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Facility-Locator/CVSP" id="LocatorPublicPageContent_gvGridView_HyperLink1_0">Chuckawalla Valley State Prison (CVSP)<br /></a></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: small;"> <span></span> He was admitted in March 2009 and is currently 43 years old.</span></p></div><p><span style="font-size: small;"><span> </span><span> </span><span>His </span>Parole Eligible Date was 10/2021; Has his Initial Board Hearing in 2022</span></p><p><span style="font-size: small;"> ==============================================================</span></p><p>Any Long-Term Offenders <u><b>had </b></u>a chance to enter the 2021 Parole Hearing Scholarship by writing before the <b>12/17/2021 envelope post-date deadline</b> to: </p></div><div style="text-align: center;"> Law office of Diane Letarte
<b> </b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Attn: Scholarship</b> </div><div style="text-align: center;">1080 Park Blvd., Suite 1008 </div><div style="text-align: center;">San Diego, CA 92101 </div><br /><p> <span style="font-size: large;">We <u><b>may </b></u>entertain doing a <u><b>2022 Scholarship next year</b></u> depending on the availability of the Attorney. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Please keep your eyes open for the next Scholarship listed (on this BLOG) and in the ECC or POSSE newsletters. The newsletters are usually found at the Prison library for Free or via a subscription to either newsletter listed below. You can write to subscribe to them.<br /><br /> ECC <span> </span><span> </span><span> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span></span>POSSE<br /> P.O. Box 5010 <span> </span><span> <span> </span><span> </span></span>P.O. Box 900188<br /> Irvine, CA 92619 Palmdale, CA 93590</span><br /> </p><p> </p><p>============================================================== <br /></p><p>The <b>OLD 2021 CRITERIA</b> for the Scholarship Application <b>WAS </b>as stated below. One can anticipate similar criteria for any potential future 2022 Parole Hearing Scholarship.</p><p> <span> </span>1) No CDC-115 (RVRs, since 2018) </p><p> <span> </span>2) Parole Hearing scheduled date must fall between 3/15/2022 and 5/15/2022 </p><p><span> </span> 3) Psychological Evaluation (aka CRA) risk rating is either a Low or a Moderate </p><p> <span> </span>4) You are NOT currently represented by a private attorney or a Law School Program </p><p><span> </span>5) Deadline to return scholarship application, postmarked on or before 12/17/21 new <br /></p><p> <br /></p>Diane T. Letartehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16084529192330718661noreply@blogger.com0