Monday, October 15, 2012

In re Sanchez 10/1/12 - The inmate's denial of the "official story" is NOT minimizing his role - A big WIN for the Lifers!

 In re Sanchez , District: 4 DCA , Division: 3 , Case #: G046189
Date: 10/1/2012, DAR #: 13676

In Short: The BPH's conclusion that the inmate refused to acknowledge responsibility for the offense was Arbitrary. Thus, the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) erred by finding that the inmate represents a current danger.

Case Holding:
The Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) erred by finding that the inmate represents a current danger based on discrepancies between the Court of Appeal's summary of the life offense and the inmate's account. In 1993 the inmate committed a gang-related driveby shooting that left a man paralyzed from the waist down. He was convicted of attempted murder and other charges and sentenced to a term that included life with possibility of parole. On several occasions since 2006 the BPH denied parole. Since then the inmate did well in custody and accepted responsibility for the life offense. He attended self help groups, job training, and educational programs.

The inmate filed a writ petition after the BPH denied parole in 2010. Held: Petition granted and case remanded for a new parole hearing. The BPH denied parole because the inmate minimized his role both in the life offense and in his gang in 1993, which reflected a criminal mentality. This, along with his unstable social history and the nature of the offense, posed a current danger.

These conclusions were reached by relying on the Court of Appeal opinion on direct review, finding the inmate's denial of the "official account" a shirking of responsibility for the offense and minimizing his gang status, which meant he lacked insight into his life crime. However, any inconsequential discrepancies between the inmate's version of events and the opinion did not reflect continuing dangerousness. Although credibility regarding the inmate’s version of events is for the BPH to determine, here, the denial of parole did not turn on a question of the inmate's credibility but "on the Board's mistaken enshrinement of an official version of the offense."

 The BPH therefore did not give meaningful review to the inmate's credibility or insight into the life crime and the conclusion that the inmate refused to acknowledge responsibility for the offense was therefore arbitrary.

Thank you to CCAP for their summary of In re Sanchez case.

Friday, October 12, 2012

LIFER Parole Hearing Denial & Filing Petition to Advance (PTA) - BPH1045(A)

On November 4, 2008, California voters were apparently swayed by emotion into passing Proposition 9,  the Victims’ Bill of Rights Act (“Act”). While the proposition’s title was admittedly appealing and evoked understandable sympathy for the silent and defenseless,  the Act’s actual language raises serious Constitutional questions. To cover up the Constitutional issues and the violation of the  Ex Post Facto legal Principle  Marsy's Law changed Penal Code 3041.5 to permit a life inmate to submit a written request to the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH), to advance his or her parole Suitability hearing to an earlier date, if there is changed circumstances or new information, after receiving the new 3 year to 15 year Denial range. (Compared to the pre-Prop 9 law allowing only for 1 year to 5 year denials).
Some of the major reasons that Marsy's  (Prop 9) Law has not been seen as an "issue" with the Court is becasue of the "safety valve" created by the Petition to Advance (PTA) the Parole hearing if s/he was denied.  Unfortunately, the Courts are not looking at the Statistics for the 94% DENYrate of these PTA. Maybe Lifers should send a message to the State Courts and start challenging the BPH 1045(A) process via a WRIT OF HABEAS COPRUS (WHC)!

If you need assistance with the preparation of the PTA please. See ATTORNEY DIANE T. LETARTE's website on the PTA at 

If you need assistance with a WHC: See: . If you can not afford to hire an attorney then contact Keith or Gary (x-inmate and pioneers of the parole process) at the address below for potential guidance in your Pro Se efforts.

A big THANKS to ECC for the hard work in fighting for the LIFERs. Keith Chandler and Gary Eccher were able to get the BPH 1045(A) Petition grant rate statistics via the PUBLIC information Request from the BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS (BPH, aka the BOARD). ECC   Eccher & Chandler Consulting produce bi-monthly - ECC Newsletters.    Keith and Gary can be reached at:

ECC   Eccher & Chandler Consulting
532 N. MAGNOLIA AVE. #333,


During the period of January 1, 2009 to June 5, 2012  there were 637 petitions to advance hearing (BPH 1045 form) submitted. 513 were summarily denied. 124 were granted full review.  42 petitions were granted a new hearing out of the actual 637 petitions submitted. That means only 6% of the actual petitions submitted were granted a new Lifer Parole Suitability hearing. That means 94% were denied.