FIRST Annual LIFER Celebration by: ECC at Buena Park 6/8/2013

A big THANK YOU to Keith Chandler and Gary "red dog" Eccher (ECC Consulting) for Sponsoring the FIRST Annual LIFER Celebration at Boisseranc Park in Buena Park, CA.


A BIG CONGRATULATIONS to the Survivors of the California Department of Correctional and Rehabilitation (CDCR).

LIFERS at BBQ

Below are just some of the Photos from the BBQ. Special guest Appearance included Sister Mary Sean Hodges (Francisco home and The Partnership for Re-Entry Program (PREP) was established in 2002), Venessa Nelson (Vanessa Nelson heads the Life Support Alliance, which advocates for the fair and unbiased consideration of parole dates for inmates sentenced to life), Attorney Michael Beckman and Family, Attorney Marilyn Spivey, our own Renegade Attorney Diane T.  Letarte with the Post-Conviction Angels (No blondes here!) Yolanda Navarro and Attorney Serena Salinas.

Sister Mary Sean Hodges, Renegade Attorney Letarte, Venessa Nelson)

(L to R, Yolanda Navarro, Red Dog, Attorney Salinas, Keith Chandler, Renegade Attorney Letarte

Atty Salinas, Mr. Trujillo, Atty Letarte, "Doc" Hales and his wife Pam

Mr. Rosenkrantz and Atty Salinas

For those of you that are new to the LIFER Legal work.....here is a Summary of this Significant battle against the Board of Prison Terms' and Governor Davis's lifer parole policies by Mr. Rosenkrantz  over 13 years ago........

In re Rosenkrantz (BPT):

In an on-going battle against the Board of Prison Terms' and Governor Davis's lifer parole policies, a California Court of Appeals condemned the BPT for failing to fairly consider evidence of a life prisoner's suitability for parole, and ordered the BPT to re-hear the prisoner's case. (In re Rosenkrantz (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 409) The BPT subsequently found Mr. Rosenkrantz suitable for parole, but the Governor blocked parole. The prisoner filed an amended habeas petition naming the Governor as a defendant, and on June 21, 2001, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge issued an order for Mr. Rosenkrantz's release, finding that he had been denied an individualized determination of suitability and that the Governor's "no parole" policy violated due process. The state appealed the order and the California Supreme Court granted a stay of the Los Angeles Court's order pending appeal. In January 2002, the Court of Appeal affirmed the order for Mr. Rosenkrantz's release. The state sought review in the California Supreme Court; in an opinion isssued December 16, 2002, the Court denied the challenge to the Governor's "No-Parole" policy, setting back many model life prisoners' hopes for parole. The case is published at (2002) 29 Cal.4th 616. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case on April 21, 2003.

=========================================================================

The Picnic was wonderful, tons of food, great Sunny Location, and even greater people attending the Celebration. In addition it was a great pleasure to see some of my Lifer Clients in their regular "street clothes".   :-)

Attorney Michael Beckman ... and the new addition to the Family.

Yolanda Navarro and Sister Mary Sean Hodges

In re Stoneroad 4/18/2013: BPH ignored "virtually all" of the Relevant Factors of Suitability

Case Name: In re Stoneroad ,
 District: 1 DCA , Division: 2 , Case #: A132591
Opinion Date: 4/18/2013 , DAR #: 5063

One for the LIFERs!.
The good LIFER case are few and far between, but here the Court chastised the BOARD for ignoring almost all of the Factors of Suitability normally reviewed during a Lifer Parole Hearing. The factors (such as Age, Prior criminal history, Institutional behavior, etc )  from the Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). 

IN SUMMARY the Court held:

Board of Parole Hearings' (BPH) decision to deny parole was not supported by substantial evidence of current dangerousness. Petitioner was a life-term inmate serving a sentence for second degree murder. He sought review of BPH's denial of parole. Held: Petition granted; case remanded.

A reviewing court is required to affirm the denial of parole unless BPH's "decision does not reflect due consideration of all relevant statutory and regulatory factors or is not supported by a modicum of evidence in the record rationally indicative of current dangerousness." Here the BPH ignored not just several of the relevant factors, "but virtually all of them." The BPH had available reliable information indicating that almost all of the regulatory factors favoring a grant of parole applied to petitioner, yet its decision denying parole mentioned virtually none of these factors.

 Further, the BPH disregarded favorable psychological evaluations. The gravity of the commitment offense is one of the factors relevant to deciding whether the inmate is suitable for parole insofar as there is a nexus between the offense and current dangerousness. That nexus did not exist here. The BPH's conclusion that petitioner's inability to recall the commission of the life offense reflected he could not understand the factors that caused him to commit it, was not rational in view of his acceptance of responsibility and remorse for the crime, and other evidence demonstrating petitioner's insight into his offense.

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.