IN RE VICKS 195 Cal.App.4th 475 (2011) ( Prior case)
In re MICHAEL VICKS on Habeas Corpus. No. D056998.
Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One. May 11, 2011.
Michael Vicks is finally FOUND SUITABLE after denying the crime for over 30 years. Mr. Vicks was denied parole at his Initial hearing with a 5-year denial, he was again denied parole for 3 year at his subsequent parole hearing. He kept getting denied becasue according to the Commissioners he had no insight and was mitigating the crime. In reality, Mr. Vicks has stayed true to his story for 32 years, that he and his co-defendant did NOT commit the rapes and robberies.
At Mr. Vicks subsequent Parole hearing #2 (3rd BPH appearance), Mr. Vicks hired ATTORNEY DIANE LETARTE and the rest is history. Attorney Letarte went out of her way to see the crime scene (yes, 32 years later). She took photos of the Ravine in San Diego where the purses of the rape Victims were discovered by Mr. Vicks (in 1983) and his Co-defendant, Mr. Cody. The location near I-94 was still as it was 32 year ago, except for a few grown trees - as describes by Mr. Vicks! The photos were used as a visual aid along with other evidence showing that Mr. Vick's story was NOT IMPLAUSIBLE (standard set by In Re Shaputis II for the PC 5011 denial of crime) and that the only extent of Mr. Vicks' involvement in those crimes were to unfortunately find the two (2) stolen purses of the rape victims in a Ravine, on his way to a cousin's home.
In 1983, Michael Vicks was convicted of two counts of rape in concert,
two counts of forcible oral copulation in concert, three counts of
kidnapping, one count of kidnapping to commit robbery, and multiple
counts of robbery On April1, 1983 and April 13, 1983 near Mission Valley. Vicks was sentenced to a total term of 37+ years to
LIFE. Vicks, now 55 years old, has been incarcerated for more than 30
At Vicks's first parole hearing, the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH)
found him unsuitable for parole. The BPH further concluded a five-year (5)
denial of parole was appropriate under the circumstances.
Vicks petitioned the trial court for a writ of habeas corpus, but the
court denied the writ, concluding the BPH's decision was supported by
some evidence. Vicks then petitioned the Appellate court for a writ of
habeas corpus. As we may recall back in the In re Vick case in 2011 --->
In 2011, Vicks asserts the BPH's decision to deny parole violated
due process in 2 ways:
1) its conclusion that he posed an unreasonable risk of danger to
society if released on parole was contrary to the only reliable evidence
that he was not currently dangerous. (2015 UPDATE: as of 2014, Vicks was still unsuitable, until he retained Attorney Letarte and on June 3, 2015 was found Suitable by BPH.)
2) He also asserted the imposition of a five-year (Marsy’s Law. Prop 9)
cannot be applied to him without violating ex post facto principles. The Court back in 2011 concluded that the application of (Prop 9) Marsy's Law violates ex post facto principles. (2015 UPDATE: Subsequent to this Court of Appeal 2011 decision. The CA Supreme Court stated that Prop 9 was not unconstitutional on its Face because inmates had the option file file a Petition to Advance their hearing.
STAY TUNE: Federal Court under the Gilman v. Brown case, Prop 89 (1988 Governor Veto power) is still in litigation with Oral argument in San Francisco. The Gilman case, of continuing interest to all LIFERS whose crime predated Nov. 8, 1988 and who's BPH grants of Parole were reversed by the Veto power of the Governor, is set for Oral argument June 17, 2015.
Post a Comment