Case Holding:
Denial of parole to a life prisoner may not be based on the aggravated nature of the crime, by itself, as "some evidence" of current dangerousness. The Governor reversed a decision by the Board of Parole Hearings to grant Loresch parole. The Governor's order rested solely on the aggravated nature of the murder and speculation that the inmate could relapse and render him currently dangerous.
The appellate court rejected the Governor's argument that the remedy, should the petition for writ of habeas corpus be granted, would be to remand for the Governor's further consideration. The opinion implores the Governor to reconsider his views and moderate them so as to restore confidence in the board's determination and stop second guessing parole-suitability determinations made by the experts.
Attorney Diane T. Letarte: LIFER Parole Hearings CALL *** 619-233-3688 ***. BLOG Focuses on the Law/News that impacts inmates with LIFE, long-term DSL (SB260 & 261, AB1308, 3X'er, LWOP) Suitability Hearings are governed mostly by Penal Code 3041, et seq. LAWRENCE and SHAPUTIS CA Supreme Court cases are 2008 Landmark cases. 3/4/13, In Re Vicks Reversed by CA Supreme. 2/22/16, Gilman v. Brown was reversed by the 9th Cir. Marsy's Law aka (prop 9, 89) remains Law. Butler reversed
Friday, June 11, 2010
5/12/2010 In re Calderon "INSIGHT" not a factor for SUITABILITY
Court of Appeal First District, Division 2
Case Holding:
Lack of insight is not a factor indicative of unsuitability for parole. The Governor reversed the parole board's decision to grant parole to petitioner, who had committed a murder during the course of a robbery. The Court of Appeal reversed. Besides the gravity of the crime, the Governor found petitioner unsuitable based on continued criminal behavior in prison and his "lack of full insight" into the effects of his prior substance abuse.
The court found the Governor's reasons did not withstand scrutiny under the In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181 standards. This crime was no more serious than other second-degree murders. Relevant post-conviction factors do not show current dangerousness since petitioner's brief association with a prison gang ended many years ago. And his alleged "lack of insight" on substance-abuse effects has no basis in the record.
After In re Shaputis (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1241, where the phrase "lack of insight" was mentioned in upholding the Governor's decision on parole ineligibility, it has become the Governor's new mantra. But, it is not even among the factors indicative of unsuitability in the regulations. Lack of insight is probative of unsuitability only to the extent it is supported by the record and rationally indicative of current dangerousness.
Case Holding:
Lack of insight is not a factor indicative of unsuitability for parole. The Governor reversed the parole board's decision to grant parole to petitioner, who had committed a murder during the course of a robbery. The Court of Appeal reversed. Besides the gravity of the crime, the Governor found petitioner unsuitable based on continued criminal behavior in prison and his "lack of full insight" into the effects of his prior substance abuse.
The court found the Governor's reasons did not withstand scrutiny under the In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181 standards. This crime was no more serious than other second-degree murders. Relevant post-conviction factors do not show current dangerousness since petitioner's brief association with a prison gang ended many years ago. And his alleged "lack of insight" on substance-abuse effects has no basis in the record.
After In re Shaputis (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1241, where the phrase "lack of insight" was mentioned in upholding the Governor's decision on parole ineligibility, it has become the Governor's new mantra. But, it is not even among the factors indicative of unsuitability in the regulations. Lack of insight is probative of unsuitability only to the extent it is supported by the record and rationally indicative of current dangerousness.
Friday, May 14, 2010
5/22/10 FREE LEGAL ADVICE for Families of the Incarcerated
WHAT:
FREE LEGAL ADVICE for Families of the Incarcerated - NO sign up needed - just show up. Attorney Letarte has represented over 1000+ inmates at Parole Suitability Hearings. She also represented inmates in the Court system on Appeals. With her last successful Writs printed on this Blog in the April posting.
WHO:
Diane T. Letarte, MBA, LLM
Former President, NC Lawyers Club
Judge ProTem – Superior Court of CA
1080 Park Blvd., Suite 1008
San Diego, CA 92101
619-233-3688 Fax: 233-3689
www.dianeletarte.com
WHEN: Sat 5/22/10 at 9:30am-Noon
WHERE:
First Evangelist Free Church of Los Angeles
1356 Albany St
Los Angeles, CA 90015
AGENDA:
9:30 am to 11:30am Tips for Lifers & Family
11:30am to 12:00pm: Qs & As
CONTACT: Amalia Molina or Nasim Khansari 213-438-4820 x16
FREE LEGAL ADVICE for Families of the Incarcerated - NO sign up needed - just show up. Attorney Letarte has represented over 1000+ inmates at Parole Suitability Hearings. She also represented inmates in the Court system on Appeals. With her last successful Writs printed on this Blog in the April posting.
WHO:
Diane T. Letarte, MBA, LLM
Former President, NC Lawyers Club
Judge ProTem – Superior Court of CA
1080 Park Blvd., Suite 1008
San Diego, CA 92101
619-233-3688 Fax: 233-3689
www.dianeletarte.com
WHEN: Sat 5/22/10 at 9:30am-Noon
WHERE:
First Evangelist Free Church of Los Angeles
1356 Albany St
Los Angeles, CA 90015
AGENDA:
9:30 am to 11:30am Tips for Lifers & Family
11:30am to 12:00pm: Qs & As
CONTACT: Amalia Molina or Nasim Khansari 213-438-4820 x16
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)