GRANT rate for Lifers looking up! -CONGRATS to Attorney Letarte who hit a 80% GRANT rate @ CVSP March 2014

Recently the BPH released a report entitled “2013 Significant Events”. Of interest was the number of grants or percentage of grants made last year. According to official BPH (Board of Parole Hearings) numbers 4,168 parole hearings were scheduled in 2013, which resulted in 590 grants and 1,448 denials, with the remainder of the number of scheduled hearings being either postponed, waived, stipulated or another non-decision rendering outcome.

The raw numbers translate to a grant rate of approximately 14%. Although 14% grant rates makes  PC 3041 (b) EXCEPTION swallow the rule but at least GRANT rate is going "up". See Ca Penal Code 3041(b) it states in part:

"The panel or the board, sitting en banc, shall set a release
date unless it determines that the gravity of the current convicted
offense ........ is such that consideration of the
public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration..." 

 ====================================================================
Although Attorney Diane T. Letarte does not keep statistics but she was very please with her rare "State Appointed week" at CVSP, in the latter part of March 2014. Of the 5 State appointed cases assigned assigned to Attorney Letarte, in 2 consecutive days - 4 of her 5 clients - were found SUITABLE and granted parole. That is an unprecedented 80% grant rate for Attorney Letarte's clients.  Attorney Letarte is very well known by the LIFERs at CVSP. She receives 100's of letters yearly from inmates from all 34 State Prisons. Attorney Letarte describes CVSP as her "home-base"  to represent Lifers. Attorney Letarte has been representing Parolees and Lifers for approximately 15 years. The last 7 years have been mostly Privately retained Lifers and on occasions she accepts 1 to 2 weeks of "state appointed" or Pro Bono Lifer cases.

To put a perspective on the GRANT rates. Ten years ago, in 2003, Attorney Letarte remembers the grant rate at approximately 3%, a rate that makes 14% look pretty good. Five years ago, in 2008, the year of Marsy’s Law enactment, the grant rate was a  4-5%. It wasn’t until 2012 that the number of lifers granted parole topped 500, when 670 were paroled. (1, footnote below)

CURRENT 12 COMMISSIONERS: Results from last year show all 12 currently sitting commissioners have grant rates within a 14 point spread, from a low of 22% to a high of 38.8%, with most commissioners individually hovering around the low 30s percentage rate.While the average denial length is 3 years, long denials (10 or 15 years) are of great concern. It is therefore imperative to retain an EXPERIENCED attorney to avoid such long Denial terms. DO NOT GO TO A PAROLE HEARING WITHOUT PROPER PREPARATION - IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE! -  

Good and reliable information as been recently discovered on FACEBOOK (2) by Attorney Letarte  from the families of the incarcerated (support group).   see FB "California's Parole Suitability Hearing" Support on FACEBOOK.


FOOTNOTEs:
(1)  A big Thank You to Venessa Nelson with LSA (Lifer Support Alliance) for the Statistic updates on the Grants. LSA can be contacted at: lifesupportalliance@gmail.com
(2)   https://www.facebook.com/CAPAROLESUITABILITYHEARINGSUPP

GILMAN V. BROWN Declares Prop 9 (Marsy's law) and Prop 89 (Gov. veto power) Violates Ex post Facto rights!!!

**** SEE OUR NEW 2/22/16 GILMAN Update post (Blog February 2016)

Gilman vs Brown (2/28/14)  (click to read the 58 page ORDER) 
CIV. S-05-830 LKK/CKD 

As John Dannenberg told me "This is a humdinger!  It is stayed pending filing of an appeal, and probably will spend a year or two in the appeals process, but is factually very strongly supported" [ for  the LIFERS!]

In summary,  Plaintiffs assert that Propositions 9 and 89 have retrospectively increased their punishments, in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The case is a pleasure to read. It is brilliant that the Rutherford class of inmates were used by the Plaintiffs (inmates) to show the ACTUAL increase in punishments that all those Lifers suffered because of Prop 9. A somewhat detailed description of the Rutherford litigation was useful because that subset of the class certified in In re Rutherford (Cal. Super. Ct., Marin County, No.SC135399A),  is representative of the Proposition 9 class certified in this GILMAN case

As a reminder:  In re Rutherford  (2004 civil class Action by the Prison Law Office) there was a complaint that all prisoners serving indeterminate terms of life with the possibility of parole  (LIFERS) had not received timely parole hearings within the time required by California Penal Code §§3041 and 3041.5.The Rutherford ORDER was to eliminate all the back log of Parole Hearings where some inmates were allowed to go forward with their parole hearing BEFORE the application of Prop 9. Bottom line of that class analysis [done in GILMAN] is that those pre-prop 9 inmate were release sooner "in general" then the post-prop 9 inmates.Hence the increase in the punishments as applied by the Board in the GILMAN case analysis.  

REMEDY from the Court:
Plaintiffs’ surviving requests are for (a) a declaration that defendants have denied plaintiffs’ rights under the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and (b) injunctive relief.

The court accordingly DECLARES that Proposition 9, (aka Marsy's Law) as implemented by the Board, violates the ex post facto rights of the class members. (i.e. Lifer inmates)

The court further DECLARES that Proposition 89, as implemented by the governors of California, violates the ex post facto rights of the class members. (i.e. Lifer inmates)


This civil case in the Federal Court is on HOLD until the appeal process is completed. This could take a year, but let's keep our fingers cross for a faster resolution from the Courts so that attorneys can start citing this case and the Board will "step inline" and follow the law. If Marsy's Law  (Prop 9) is stricken down as unconstitutional then the DENIAL periods should roll back to the 1, 2, 3, 4 , 5  vs. the current 15, 10 , 7, 5, 3 year denials at Parole Suitability Hearings. Furthermore, if Prop 89 (veto power of the governor to reverse Grants) are stricken done then maybe the Commissioners will be left to do their JOBS without the threat from the Governor and it will hopefully eliminate "some" the Conflicts of Interest with the Governor's Office.

 YES YES YES - i am a little excited about this case for my LIFER clients. Marsy's law "as applied" is unconstitutional....   REALLY !   LOL

Three-Federal Judge Court (PLATA) SOCKS it to Governor Brown to Release more inmates including qualified LIFERS!

PLATA vs BROWN    Extension ORDER (click here to see ORDER)
NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC)
REF:  PRISON Over Crowding issues.

Federal Court partially grants the extension of time to comply with the original court Order for the prison population reduction benchmark....but adds CONDITIONS. 

See saignant points (below) of the Court Order that will finally be affecting LIFER inmates.
Talk about SB260 Youth hearings. What about Elderly Hearings, if over 60 years old and served minimally 25 years of the sentence..... Stay Tune Coming Soon.

CDCR will meet the following interim and final population reduction benchmarks:
(a)  143%    of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
(b) 141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and
(c) 137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.


Defendants (i.e. Governor via BPH and CDCR)) shall also immediately implement the following measures:
 ...
(c) Parole certain inmates serving indeterminate sentences (LIFERS) who have
 already been granted parole by the Board of Parole Hearings but have future       parole dates;
(d)  In consultation with the Receiver’s office, finalize and implement an expanded parole process for medically incapacitated inmates;
(e) Finalize and implement a new parole process whereby inmates who are 60 years of age or older and have served a minimum of 25 years of their sentence will be referred to the Board of Parole Hearings to determine suitability for parole;

(h) Implement an expanded alternative custody program for female inmates.
...
 The Court will appoint a Compliance Officer for the purpose of bringing
defendants into compliance with any missed benchmark by ordering inmate releases. If compliance with any benchmark is not achieved within a 30-day period following the expiration of any missed benchmark, the Compliance Officer shall, within seven days, direct the release of the number of inmates necessary to achieve compliance with the missed benchmark and the measures to be followed in selecting the prisoners to be released. The authority of the Compliance Officer shall extend no further than ordering defendants to release inmates necessary to ensure defendants’ compliance with any missed benchmark.
  ...
 9. To the extent that any state statutory, constitutional, or regulatory provisions,
except the California Public Resources Code, impede the implementation of this order or defendants’ ability to achieve the population reduction benchmarks, all such laws and regulations are waived. Although the Court does not issue a general waiver of the Public Resources Code, defendants may request waivers, as the need arises, of these statutory provisions that are tailored to specific projects.

10. This Court shall maintain jurisdiction over this matter for as long as is
necessary to ensure that defendants’ compliance with the 137.5% final benchmark is durable, and such durability is firmly established.

11. Defendants shall, within 60 days of the date of this order, file with the Compliance Officer under seal, the categories of prisoners who are least likely to reoffend or who might otherwise be candidates for early release (the “Low Risk List”) that this Court  previously ordered them to create. The Low Risk List shall not be viewed by the Compliance Officer unless and until he or she is ordered to do so by this Court. Similarly, this Court will not inspect the list unless circumstances so warrant. Defendants shall file an amended list every 60 days, should changes to the list become appropriate.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 02/10/14                      SIGNED by the 3 Federal Judges