SB 260-POSSIBLE RELIEF FOR LIFERS SENTENCED AS JUVENILES

 The article below is mostly a reprint from the LSA - Life Support Alliance group Newsletter. A big thank you to Vanessa Nelson for all her hard work in Support of the LIFERS.

Sister Mary Sean Hodges, Attorney Diane Letarte, Vanessa Nelson

Senate Bill 9 (also called SB 9) became California law in January 2013. This law gives a second chance to most people who were under the age of 18 at the time of their crime and sentenced to life without parole. They can ask the court for a new sentencing hearing. At that hearing, they will have the chance of getting a new sentence with the possibility of parole. SB 9 is in the California Penal Code section 1170(d). SB 9 allows a person who was under 18 years old at the time of a crime and sentenced to life without parole to submit a request to have a new sentencing hearing.

SB 260, introduced by Sen. Loni Hancock (D-Petaluma) is a companion piece to SB 9, Sen. Leland Yee’s bill passed last year that offered relief to those sentenced to LWOP as juveniles. SB 260, not yet fully passed by the legislature or signed by Gov. Brown, is a bi-furcated bill, meaning it offers two levels of action. It addresses all those sentenced to life with the possibility of parole and who were under 18 years of age at the time of the crime, offering the chance to have their sentences reviewed for possible reduction from the life term. Under current provisions SB 260 would require the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) to hold a Youth Opportunity Review Hearing,

Those convicted of a non-homicide (attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder or manslaughter) and sentenced to a determinate term of 40 years or less or an indeterminate term with a base term of 40 years or less could be offered the Youth Opportunity Review Hearing during the 15th year of incarceration.

Those with the same category of offenses but sentenced to or with a base term of more than 40 years will be considered during the 20th year of imprisonment.

For those with a second degree homicide conviction, the hearings will be held during the 15th year inside and for those with a first degree murder conviction, in the 25th year of their prison term. The bill also provides for a review of circumstances 5 years prior to the window for the Youth Opportunity Hearing, similar to the documentation hearings, to provide information on parole hearings and suitability requirements. If the youth hearing does not result in a recommendation for parole the denial time will be limited to 3 years.

There are other factors included in the language of SB 260 relating to what factors shall be considered in the Youth Opportunity Review Hearing, including the exclusion of those convicted under 3 Strikes from consideration under the bill or those convicted for first degree murder with special circumstances.


Having already cleared the Senate and the Assembly Public Safety Committee SB 260 will be heard in Assembly Appropriations Committee the second or third week in August, when the legislature returns from recess.

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.