Friday, June 22, 2018

In re Darryl Poole (6/22/18) - Court socks it to BOARD for Lip Service to YOPH

Hearty congratulations to awesome Attorney Michael Satris!

In re Darryl Doyle  case #A152341 - (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. 96274)
In re Poole ____ Cal.App.5th ____, ____ Cal.Rptr.3d ____, 2018 
D.A.R. 6257 (1st Dist. 2018) June 22, 2018 (A1522341)

The  COA of the state of California just Published today 6/22/18 a Great decision in a Youth Offender Parole Hearing case!!  
Division Two of the First Appellate District vacates a parole denial, smacking the  BOARD around a bit to for its lack of insight finding: 
The court stated: "It is unclear what greater insight the Board could have been looking for."

AND here is what the Court stated for the BOARD's treatment of youth Factors:

The Board paid lip service to the requirement that it consider youth factors, but the record gives no indication the Board actually did so, much less that it gave these factors “great weight.” (Pen. Code, § 4801, subd. (c).)


Convicted of a second degree murder committed in 1988, petitioner Darryl Poole
was sentenced to a prison term of  20 years to life.  He contends the Board of Parole
Hearings acted arbitrarily in finding him unsuitable
for release on parole in that there was
not “some evidence” he posed a current danger to public safety.  Additionally, he
challenges the Board’s application of Marsy’s Law, enacted subsequent to his offense, as
imposing ex post facto punishment , and argues that the Board’s appointment procedures
and compensation limits for attorneys appointed to represent inmates at parole hearings
deprive him and other inmates of effective assistance of counsel.  We find no evidence in
the record to support the Board’s determination that petitioner presents a current danger
to the public.  Accordingly, the Board’s decision cannot stand.


The record clearly demonstrates that petitioner has long since disavowed the
criminal conduct and values of his youth and dedicated himself to improvement of his
own skills and internal resources and to providing help to others.  He has expressed understanding of what caused him to commit a heinous crime as a 19-year-old, over 28 years ago, and remorse for taking an innocent life and the resulting pain he inflicted on the victim’s family. Even without reference to the directives of Penal Code section 4801, this record reflects no support for the Board’s finding of “no insight,” and no evidence petitioner poses a current threat to public safety. Considering
the contrast between the irrationality, impulsivity and recklessness of petitioner’s offense
as a 19-year-old, and the evidence of his subsequent development of maturity and changes in attitude and conduct, the Board’s hearing and decision in this case inspire little confidence that it took seriously the directive of  Penal Code sections 3051 and 4801, subdivision (c), for it to provide a “meaningful opportunity to obtain release, ”with “great weight” given to “the diminished culpability of youth
as compared to adults, the hallmark features of youth, and any subsequent growth and increased maturity of the prisoner in accordance with relevant case law.

The Board’s decision cannot stand.


The decision of the Board is hereby vacated.  The matter is remanded for a new
parole suitability hearing consistent with due process of law and this decision.  (See
Prather, supra,  50 Cal.4th at p. 244.)

 Click Here for the full OPINION :