GIlman v. Brown (Prop9) Marsy's Law: 9th Cir. Oral Argument - wait and see

UPDATE***** SEE OUR NEW 2/22/16 GILMAN  POSTING BLOG ( February 2016)

California Governor Brown appeals from the district court's bench trial judgment in an action brought by LIFE inmates challenging, on ex post facto grounds, Propositions 89 and 9, pertaining to the State's parole system.

==========================
As a reminder below are the two Propositions (P9, P89) being challenged: 

(NOTE back in 2008 it passed by 54% = Y,  46%= N)

On November 4, 2008, the People of the State of California approved Proposition 9, the Victims' Bill of Rights Act of 2008: Marsy's Law. This measure amended the California Constitution to provide additional rights to victims and increased all the Lifer Parole Hearing denial lengths from the range of 1 to 5 year to a minimum of 3 year to 15 year denial.   

(NOTE back in 1988 it passed by 55% = Y,  45%= N)

On  November 8, 1988 the People of the State of  approved California Proposition 89.
Proposition 89 gave to the Governor of California the authority to approve, modify, or Reverse any decision by the Parole authority (Board of Parole Hearings  or Youthful Offender Parole Board) regarding the parole of persons who are sentenced to an indeterminate term (ISL) for committing murder.

===========================
See Attorney Monica Knox's great Oral argument in the (9th Circuit Court on Gilman v. Brown  (Prop9, Prop 89). She challenges the application of Marsy's Law to all the LIFERS that were sentence prior to the 2008 enacted Marsy's Law. She argues for a class of approximately 10,000 Lifer (ISL) inmates.
GO MONICA GO.

**** We will have to wait for the 9th Circuit 's Decision of the June 15, 2015  Oral argument.

WE ARE LL HOPING THAT THE 9TH CIRCUIT AFFIRMS THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECISION and finds that Marsy's Law is unconstitutional because it violates the Ex Post Facto principle.

In Re Vicks found Suitable after denying the crime for 30+ years!

IN RE VICKS  195 Cal.App.4th 475 (2011)   ( Prior case)
In re MICHAEL VICKS on Habeas Corpus.  No. D056998.
Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One.  May 11, 2011.

Michael Vicks is finally FOUND SUITABLE  after denying the crime for over 30 years. Mr. Vicks was denied parole at his Initial hearing with a 5-year denial, he was again denied parole for 3 year at his subsequent parole hearing. He kept getting denied becasue according to the Commissioners he had no insight and was mitigating the crime. In reality, Mr. Vicks has stayed true to his story for 32 years, that he and his co-defendant did NOT commit the rapes and robberies.  

At Mr. Vicks subsequent Parole hearing #2 (3rd BPH appearance), Mr. Vicks hired ATTORNEY DIANE LETARTE  and the rest is history. Attorney Letarte went out of her way to see the crime scene (yes, 32 years later). She took photos of the Ravine in San Diego where the purses of the rape Victims were discovered by Mr. Vicks (in 1983) and his Co-defendant, Mr. Cody. The location near I-94 was still as it was 32 year ago, except for a few grown trees - as describes by Mr. Vicks! The photos were used as a visual aid along with other evidence showing that Mr. Vick's story was NOT IMPLAUSIBLE (standard set by In Re Shaputis II for the PC 5011 denial of crime) and that  the only extent of Mr. Vicks' involvement in those crimes were to unfortunately find the two (2) stolen purses of the rape victims in a Ravine, on his way to a cousin's home.


Background Summary: 
In 1983, Michael Vicks was convicted of two counts of rape in concert, two counts of forcible oral copulation in concert, three counts of kidnapping, one count of kidnapping to commit robbery, and multiple counts of robbery On April1, 1983 and April 13, 1983 near Mission Valley. Vicks was sentenced to a total term of 37+ years to LIFE. Vicks, now 55 years old, has been incarcerated for more than 30 years.

At Vicks's first parole hearing, the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) found him unsuitable for parole.  The BPH further concluded a five-year (5) denial of parole was appropriate under the circumstances.
Vicks petitioned the trial court for a writ of habeas corpus, but the court denied the writ, concluding the BPH's decision was supported by some evidence. Vicks then petitioned the Appellate court for a writ of habeas corpus. As we may recall back in the In re Vick case in 2011 --->

In 2011, Vicks asserts the BPH's decision to deny parole violated due process in 2 ways:

1) its conclusion that he posed an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released on parole was contrary to the only reliable evidence that he was not currently dangerous. (2015 UPDATE:  as of 2014, Vicks was still unsuitable, until he retained Attorney Letarte and on June 3, 2015 was found Suitable by BPH.)

2) He also asserted the imposition of a five-year (Marsy’s Law. Prop 9) cannot be applied to him without violating ex post facto principles. The Court back in 2011 concluded that the application of (Prop 9)  Marsy's Law violates ex post facto principles.  (2015 UPDATE:  Subsequent to this Court of Appeal 2011 decision. The CA Supreme Court stated that Prop 9 was not unconstitutional on its Face because inmates had the option file file a Petition to Advance their hearing.

STAY TUNE:  Federal Court under the Gilman  v. Brown case, Prop 89 (1988 Governor Veto power) is still in litigation with Oral argument in San Francisco. The Gilman case, of continuing interest to all LIFERS whose crime predated Nov. 8, 1988 and who's BPH grants of Parole were reversed by the Veto power of the Governor, is set for Oral argument June 17, 2015.

SB224 Expanded Elderly Parole HEARING around the corner: SB224 (50yrs old and Down 15 years or more)

Sen. Carol Liu (Democrat), author of SB 224, (Elderly Parole Hearing) bill enacted last year, recently introduced a follow-up to BPH's (Oct 2014 Elderly Program), called Senate Bill 224 (SB224). The Bill has not passed as to the writing of this BLOG, it was In SENATE Committee on APPROPRIATIONS  on April 20, 2015.

 
Summary:
Requires the Board of Parole Hearings  (BPH) to conduct a ELDERLY PAROLE HEARING for offenders sentence to State prison who have reached their Golden Years of 50 years of age (or more) and have been incarcerated 15 years or more. NOTE: This is a great expansion from the older BPH regulation that was established in October 2014 to allow 60 yrs old who had over 25 years of incarceration.


Under the language of SB 224, the new bill will consider ‘hallmarks of Elderly’ (kinda). The Elderly Parole Program will require the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) to consider whether age, time served, and diminished physical condition, if any, have reduced the prisoner's risk for future violence.  If you want to retain an Attorney with ELDERLY experience (attorney Letarte over 50 years old herself and has empathy for her clients)  please contact ATTORNEY DIANE LETARTE via her website or
email at Attorney Letarte's office. 

Status:

02/13/2015 INTRODUCED.
02/26/2015 To SENATE Committee on PUBLIC SAFETY.
03/19/2015 From SENATE Committee on PUBLIC SAFETY with author's amendments.
03/19/2015 In SENATE. Read 2nd time & amended. Re-referred to Committee on PUBLIC SAFETY.
04/07/2015 From SENATE Committee on PUBLIC SAFETY: Do pass to Committee on APPROPRIATIONS.
04/20/2015 In SENATE Committee on APPROPRIATIONS: To Suspense File.

Bill Text
03/19/2015 - SB 224 (Amended)
02/13/2015 - SB 224 (Introduced)



To get an update please contact:   Sen. Carol Liu  (Democrat- click for email) - 
State Senate  (click on  Sen. website)

Capital Address:
California State Capitol
Room 5097
Sacramento, CA 95814-4900
Phone: (916) 651-4025

District Address:
1000 N. Central Avenue
Suite 240
Glendale, CA 91202
Phone: (818) 409-0400
Fax: (818) 409-1256