WINNER of the 2021 Scholarship from the Law Office of Diane T. Letarte hails out of CTF: The Winner gets a PRO BONO 2022 Parole Hearing representation

In the last several months, our law office was running a Parole Hearing Scholarship Essay competition for any inmate to win a Pro Bono Parole Hearing Representation by Attorney Diane T Letarte. This was available throughout the 35 California State Prisons, as posted in the Prison Newsletters that endorsed our Scholarship. The two Newsletters were:  ECC and POSSE as described below.

Attorney Diane T. Letarte spent several days reading all the Essays that were turned in and grading them on a 1 to 10 scale: 10 being the Best Essay. The grades ranged from 3.5 to 9.0 out of a 10 point grading system. The essays reflected different level of self-introspection in the responses by the inmates. We do not have authorization yet to post the NAME of the Winner (at the writing of this BLOG) but we provide the following results based on Prison Location, admission date, and their current age.

PRIZEs: 

1st Place Winner receives a Pro Bono representation by Attorney Letarte at his 2022 Parole Hearing. 

2nd and 3rd place winners will receive the revised TIPS document (authored by Attorney Letarte, consisting of over 40 pages) to assist with their own preparation at their next parole hearing. In addition, they will get our Law Office complimentary 2022 Wall Calendar to keep track of all their important dates.

PAROLE HEARING 2021 SCHOLARSHIP RESULTS 

 1st  Place WINNER from  Correctional Training Facility (CTF) State Prison,

        He was admitted in October 1994 and is currently 48 years old.

 

        His Parole Eligible Date was 2/2011; Has been in the Board cycle since 2009

2nd Place (1st runner-up) from  California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (SATF-COR)

       He was admitted in June 1997 and is currently 51 years old.

       His Parole Eligible Date was 4/2004; Has been in the Board cycle since 2004

 

3rd Place (2nd runner-up) from Chuckawalla Valley State Prison (CVSP)

       He was admitted in March 2009 and is currently 43 years old.

       His Parole Eligible Date was 10/2021; Has his Initial Board Hearing in  2022

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

Any Long-Term Offenders had a chance to enter the 2021 Parole Hearing Scholarship by writing before the 12/17/2021 envelope post-date deadline to: 

 Law office of Diane Letarte  

Attn: Scholarship 

1080 Park Blvd., Suite 1008 

San Diego, CA 92101 

 We may entertain doing a 2022 Scholarship next year depending on the availability of the Attorney. 

Please keep your eyes open for the next Scholarship listed (on this BLOG) and in the ECC or POSSE newsletters. The newsletters are usually found at the Prison library for Free or via a subscription to either newsletter listed below. You can write to subscribe to them.

            ECC                                           POSSE
            P.O. Box 5010                            P.O. Box 900188
            Irvine, CA  92619                       Palmdale, CA  93590
 

 

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

The OLD 2021 CRITERIA for the Scholarship Application WAS as stated below. One can anticipate similar criteria for any potential future 2022 Parole Hearing Scholarship.

     1) No CDC-115 (RVRs, since 2018) 

     2) Parole Hearing scheduled date must fall between 3/15/2022 and 5/15/2022 

     3) Psychological Evaluation (aka CRA) risk rating is either a Low or a Moderate 

     4) You are NOT currently represented by a private attorney or a Law School Program 

    5) Deadline to return scholarship application, postmarked on or before 12/17/21 new

 

Governor Signs SB775, Clarifying the Scope and Procedure for Resentencing Under SB1437 (Pen. Code, § 1170.95)

On October 5, 2021, the the Governor signed Senate Bill No. 775, which amends Penal Code section 1170.95 (added by Senate Bill No. 1437) to expand eligibility for resentencing and clarify procedural requirements for the process. The amendments are effective January 1, 2022. 

This is an EXCERPT from Central California Appellate Program (CCAP)'s announcement: 

 Here are the important highlights: 

  The bill provides that defendants convicted of the following crimes may be eligible for resentencing (provided other criteria in the statute are met, see amended Pen. Code, § 1170.95, subd. (a)(1)-(3)): (1) attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, (2) manslaughter, or (3) murder under an implied malice theory where malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person's participation in a crime. (Id., subd. (a).) 

The bill clarifies that the trial court must determine whether the petitioner could presently be convicted of murder or attempted murder. (Id., subd. (a)(3).) 

It codifies the holdings of People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 961-970, regarding a petitioners' right to appointment of counsel and the standard for determining the existence of a prima facie case. (Amended Pen. Code, § 1170.95, subds. (b)(3), (c).) 

 It provides that if the trial court declines to issue an order to show cause at the prima facie stage, the trial court must provide a statement of reasons fully setting forth the basis for its decision. (Id., subd. (c).) 

The bill clarifies procedural requirements for a subdivision (d)(3) hearing. "The admission of evidence in the hearing shall be governed by the Evidence Code, except that the court may consider evidence previously admitted at any prior hearing or trial that is admissible under current law, including witness testimony, stipulated evidence, and matters judicially noticed. The court may also consider the procedural history of the case recited in any prior appellate opinion." (Emphasis added; note that the bill does not state that the factual summary in an appellate opinion may be considered.) Hearsay evidence that was admitted in a preliminary hearing pursuant to Penal Code section 872, subdivision (b) (sworn testimony of a current or retired law enforcement officer relating the statements of declarants made out of court and offered for the truth of the matter asserted) "shall be excluded from the hearing, unless the evidence is admissible pursuant to another exception to the hearsay rule." (Id., subd. (d)(3).) 

The legislation amends section 1170.95 to provide that "[a] finding that there is substantial evidence to support a conviction for murder, attempted murder, or manslaughter is insufficient to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the petitioner is ineligible for resentencing." (Ibid.) 

A person who is resentenced may be subject to parole supervision for up to two years (formerly up to three years). (Id., subd. (h).) 

It clarifies that a person who is currently appealing the judgment in their case may seek relief under SB 1437 on direct appeal: "A person convicted of murder, attempted murder, or manslaughter whose conviction is not final may challenge on direct appeal the validity of that conviction based on the changes made to [Penal Code] Sections 188 and 189 by Senate Bill 1437 (Chapter 1015 of the Statutes of 2018)." (Id., subd. (g).)  

 

A BIG THANK YOU to CCAP for summarizing the high points.

New Laws (SB 81, AB 518, SB 775) & Supreme Court Interpretation Of 1170.95 Statute (aka SB 1437)

A few month ago, the Supreme Court in People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 interpreted Penal Code section 1170.95, which was enacted in Senate Bill 1437, 2018 legislation narrowing murder liability under the felony murder theory and the natural and probable consequences doctrine. 

  If any inmates (or their attorneys) have winning Superior Court SB1437s cases between now and the end of the year consider putting off the resentencing until 1/1/22 to get the benefit of some of the new laws. 

 *** SB 81 (creates a set of guidelines for courts that would curb the use of sentence enhancements in nonviolent offenses unless a judge determines that they are necessary to protect public safety ) has many new considerations which might way in favor of dismissing long enhancements. 

 *** AB 518 amends PC 654 (an act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law); stating informally that the judge does not have to pick the longest term for the same act anymore. 

*** SB 775 (SB 775 clarifies existing law to explicitly include voluntary manslaughter and attempted murder conversation as eligible for relief under SB 1437) affirms that the max parole period after resentencing is 2 years, down from 3 years. 

The Governor signed these new laws that amend statutes and will be effective January 2022. 

 For instance SB 775: The bill says that it “[c]odifies the holdings of People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 961-970, regarding petitioners’ right to counsel and the standard for determining the existence of a prima facie case” and that it “[a]ddresses what evidence a court may consider at a resentencing hearing (clarifying the discussion in People v. Lewis, supra, at pp. 970-972).”  

At present, there are many cases on the court’s docket holding for Lewis. SB 775 may affect those cases. If it does, the court would hold off on disposing of those grant-and-holds so that NOW any Reconsideration orders would most likely include references to both the new legislation and Lewis. Stay tuned. 

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

RECOMMENDATIONs given the new laws effective 1/1/2022:                                                          (thank you to the CCAP (appellate group) for the words of wisdom) 

If anybody has winning superior court 1437s cases between now and the end of the year consider putting off the resentencing until 1/1/22 to get the benefit of some of the new laws (SB 81, AB 518, SB 775), as described above. 

Other laws or cases to keep in mind that If the inmate was under 18 at the time of the crime the People v. Montes: the case says that when somebody is resentenced they get the benefit of the new laws - specifically Prop. 57 which repealed Prop 21, which allowed for the direct-file of juvenile offenders in the adult criminal justice system. Prop 21 placed the discretion of whether to prosecute a juvenile as an adult solely with the prosecutor. However, under Prop 57, the judge retains the decision as to whether a juvenile is better served in the juvenile justice system or the adult criminal justice system. 

Even if your client (inmate, or loved ones) is old now and was direct filed or had a prior transfer hearing you need to make a motion to transfer to juvenile court citing People v. Montes. Pre-Prop. 57 transfer hearings don't suffice because the burdens have changed and are now more juvenile friendly. (People v. Garcia (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 316.) 

The case that judges were using to argue against juvenile transfer motions -- Federico -- is still pending in the Supreme Court, but People v. Montes was written by the author of Federico and the justice reversed himself with People v. Montes (10/7/21 new case).

 DO not let judges rely on Federico without arguing Montes. 

 Below is the People v. Montes case info URL address: case in the COA-4, Division 2:

(NOTE: you can cut-n-paste the URL address into your Navigator to get to the PDF case file.

 https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/E075064.PDF