Friday, October 31, 2014

LIFERs Administrative Review (AR) and Petition to Advance (PTA)

Since the In re Vicks (2013) case challenging Marsy's Law, BPH hase gone into a "spin" (see AR & PTA section below) to avoid a possible win (by the Lifers)  in the Federal case Gilman vs Brown (2/28/14) challenging Marsys' law - as applied.

Michael D. Vicks contended that application of the new parole procedures to prisoners who committed their crimes prior to the enactment of Marsy’s Law violates the ex post facto clauses of the federal and state Constitutions. (U.S. Const., art. I, § 10, cl. 1; Cal. Const., art. I, § 9.)  He challengeg the amendments both on their face and as applied to him.  Unfortunately the CA Supreme Court did not think there was anything wrong with applying this 2008 voted in Marsy's Law to Lifers that had already been sentenced BEFORE this law was enacted.Vicks was lost at the CA SUPREME court....

What does Unconstitutional  "AS APPLIED" mean for means that if the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) do not start using the available tools such as the Petition to Advance (PTA)  and the Administrative Power to recall inmate to a Parole Hearing earlier than their 3 to 15 year Denial,  then  Marsys's law may BE Unconstitutional "AS APPLIED" given a longer punishments (incarceration)  to the LIFERS.

......Stay tune for the continuing Marsy's law battle in the Federal Court. Gilman vs Brown (2/28/14)  CIV. S-05-830 LKK/CKD. In summary,  Plaintiffs assert that Propositions 9 (Marsy's Law) and 89  (Governor veto power) have retrospectively increased their punishments, in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution.


**Thanks to all the Hard work of LIFE SUPPORT ALLIANCE (LSA, Vanessa and staff) we can provide the Grant rates of these tools. Since July 2012 the BOARDS's legal team now reviews most 3-year denials approximately 12 months after the hearing and may recommend advancing the Hearing earlier then the original denial years. This Administrative Review (ARs) will verify if significant progress is perceived, if yes the LIFER will be notified  (SUA SPONTE - no action on the LIFER's part) that his hearing will be advanced.

BELOW are the GRANT RATES for both ARs and PTAs. Originally (2009) the PTA grant rates were around 2% when Marsys' law was voted in 2008. BPH officials are reporting that 58% of PTAs submitted by Inmates are approved. In turn, of those advanced BPH hearings via the PTA (BPH 1045 form) are granted at the rate of 24% AND via the AR system they are granted at the rate of 29.5%.

58% Grant on the PTA -- A much improved rate from the 2% PTA grant of 2009-2011 or so. The MESSAGE HERE...and rule of thumb - if the inmate is denied at their hearing make sure the inmate (or the Attorney filing the PTA) reviews the reason why the BOARD denied the inmate in the first place and correct all those flaws then apply for the PTA - there will be a 58% s/he will get a new hearing.