In re Vicks REVERSED by the CA Supreme Court. Unfortunately for LIFERS - Marsy's Law remains the Law!

 In re MICHAEL D. VICKS on Habeas Corpus SUMMARY OUTCOME.

The long awaited In Re Vicks Decision from the 1/8/13 ORAL argument is finally decided. 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.What a Let down for all the Lifers, it was good battle at the Court of Appeal, unfortunately it was lost at the CA  SUPREME court.

WHAT happens now if my loved one was denied 3,5,7,10,or 15 years?

The fall back position is to do a PETITION TO ADVANCE the parole hearing earlier than the 3, 5, 7, 10, or 15 year denial. One can use the BPH 1045(a) form to Advance Petition, when the inmate has been denied multiple years but new circumstances have developed so that he no longer needs additional time. The petition should then be submitted for a new Lifer Parole Hearing, before the full denial period.

==================
In 2008, California voters approved Proposition 9, the Victims Bill of Rights Act of 2008: Marsy’s Law. The changes enacted by Marsy’s Law became effective immediately; pertinent here are the amendments to Penal Code1 section 3041.5 that increase the denial (3 to 15 years) period of time between parole hearings but allow for the advancement of a hearing if a change in circumstances or new information subsequently establishes that there is a reasonable probability the prisoner is suitable for parole.

Petitioner Michael D. Vicks (Vicks) contends that application of these 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 challenges the amendments both on their face and as applied to him.

For the reasons set forth below in the full opinion, CA SUPREME Court reject both of his challenges and reverse the Court of Appeal.

See the full opinion  In re Vicks opinion at CA SUPREME COURT OPINION.

In re VICKS: OPINION to be filed MONDAY 3/4/13 @10am

SUPREME Court Issue -  Is Marsy's Law a violation of ex post facto principles for those incarcerated BEFORE Marsy's Law?    See the 2013  UPDATES at the California Appellate Court case Information.

Case was argued and submitted on 1/8/13 in San Francisco. QUICK 1/10/13 SUMMARY:  Justice Liu seemed to be our biggest advocate, while Corrigan appeared to be clearly on the other side (no surprise given her 1983-1986 Position as Special Consultant, President’s Task Force on Victims of Violent Crime, 1982.) Other justices were on the fence while other were hard to read.  The Chief Justice was sworn into office on January 3, 2011 is the first Asian-Filipina American and the second woman to serve as the state’s Chief Justice. Of course, you never really can call these cases, so we'll just have to wait & see. (A Personal thanks to the In re Vicks' Attorney who argued the case on 1/8/2013)
 
In re Russo (2011), Cal.App.4th (No. D057405 Fourt Dist.. Div One. April  8, 2011)
In conclusion, the Court held that Marsy's law was just an "admistrative method by which a parole release date is set..." and concluded that no ex post facto violation occurred.

In Re Vicks (2011), Cal.App.4th (No. D056998. Fourt Dist.. Div One. May 11, 2011).
In conclusion, the Court conclude the application of the amendments to Penal Code section 3041.5, subdivision (b), to inmates whose commitment offense was committed prior to the effective date of Marsy's Law (November 5,  2008) violates ex post facto principles.
 
In re Aragon (2011), Cal.App.4th (No. D058040 Fourt Dist.. Div One. June 9, 2011).

In re Smith (2011), 196 Cal.App.4th 468, review granted September 14, 2011, S194750.

In re Rodriguez (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1158, review granted January 18, 2012, S197961;
In conclusion, the Court rejected the In re Vicks panel's conclusion and stated that Marsy's Law does NOT violate the ex post facto principles.

In summary, WE will have an OPINION by March 4, 2013 from the CA Supreme Court. It will  be a Ruling on:  Whether Marsy's Law is being applied ex post facto (after the fact) on thousands of LIFERS since Prop 9 became effective late 2008 thus denying them from 3 to 15 years at their LIFER Parole Suitability vs. the old law of 1 to 5 year denials when they were found unsuitable.

DEC. 2012 BPH Executive Board meeting - Dr. Latessa on PCL-R

BPH's December 2012 Executive Board meeting had several speakers including Dr. Latessa Professor at the University of Cincinnati and Dr. Kusaj (current FAD chief psychologist).

Edward J. Latessa received his Ph.D. from the Ohio State University in 1979 and is Interim Dean and Professor of the College of Education, Criminal Justice and Human Services at the University of Cincinnati.  Dr. Latessa has published over 140 works in the area of criminal justice, corrections, and juvenile justice.  He is co-author of seven books including Corrections in the Community, and Corrections in America. Professor Latessa has directed over 150 funded research projects including studies of day reporting centers, juvenile justice programs, drug courts, prison programs, intensive supervision programs, halfway houses, and drug programs. He and his staff have also assessed over 600 correctional programs throughout the United States, and he has provided assistance and workshops in over forty-five states. Dr. Latessa served as President of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (1989-90).

Successful Rehabilitation was the focus of  Dr. Ed Latessa's presentation. Dr. Kusaj's presentation focused on Risk Assessment and Parole Decision Making.

In attendance were most of the BPH Commissioners. A transcript of this public session is available. Please contact the Law office of Diane T. Letarte for a copy of the pdf file transcript.

One interesting comment (below) by Dr. Latessa on the result and use of the PCL-R test (aka psychopathy check list) when questioned by one of the BPH commissioner in attendance.

Below is a short EXCERPT of one Dr. Latessa's response at the December 2012 Executive Board Meeting Session:


COMMISSIONER FRITZ:
We have some inmates who have high -- are high on the Psychopathy Checklist. And are there ideas -- You know, some of it's historical,  some of it's fluid, ideas for them, the programs that they need to work on those issues on the checklist.

DR. LATESSA: That's a tough question. I'm not,  you know, I've done some work in this area. I'm not,  you know, an expert per se in psychopathy. There are  those including one of my colleagues I work closely with  who believes that we can bring about change with  psychopaths. Conventional research wisdom says they do  not respond well to the traditional approaches. They do  not respond to talk therapy at all. COG, no.

There is  some evidence that putting them in treatment makes them  worse. And the reason is because these are people that  are bright, manipulative, and when you put them in group  settings, right, what they're learning is what people's  weaknesses are and how to go at them and so forth. For  example, in our studies in Ohio, we found that putting low risk sex offenders and high risk sex offenders was a  big mistake. You increased dramatically the risk for  low risk sex offenders, and I think it's because they  were learning these things from the high risk people. I do know there are some states that do work with  psychopaths and they tend to keep them together. So  they do not put them in with other inmates a YA sex offender program. For example, Wisconsin used to do  that. I don't know if they still do. So what they're  doing is providing treatment, but that's an inclusionary  criteria. You don't put them in with non, you know.

The label psychopath is a tough label. It's a damning  label. I think where you really are concerned is when  they have a history of violent behavior. I would never  just do a psychopathy checklist on everybody. It's a  big mistake. But if they've got a history of violent  behavior, I think it's appropriate to screen them for that and then you have to make decisions accordingly. But I can't stand here and say we've got all these great  treatment modalities for them. Most folks would say  that, you know, we don't.

Not all psychopaths, you know, get into trouble. Some of them are CEOs, some of  them sell insurance, you know, used cars, brothers-in- law, people like that. But when they've got that  history of violence, then I think you have to be -- I'd always err on the side of caution.


For  more thorough viewing of the interactions between the BPH commissioners and the Guest Psychologist speaker please contact Attorney Diane T. Letarte for a copy of the transcript at email: dletarte@earthlink.net please specify in the SUBJECT line that you are requesting BPH Dec 2012 Session transcript from my BLOG posting.