Attorney Letarte Invited to speak to Lifers at CSP-SAC

 Attorney Diane T. Letarte invited to speak Saturday June 4, 2016 to Lifer group at California State Prison,   Sacramento (CSP-SAC) a.k.a. New Folsom in Represa, CA.

NOTE:** If your Loved one is incarcerated at CSP-SAC, make sure they ask their Correctional Counselor (CO) to give them a DUCAT to attend the Free 6/4/2016 seminar on how to prepare for their Parole Suitability Hearing. If they are not housed at CSP-SAC, you may consider buying them the Parole Packet  (and mailing it to them) to assist them in preparing for the parole hearing - on their own.  

The Law Office of Diane T. Letarte is a community based law firm located in San Diego, California. The law office serves the 35 State Prisons in the entire State of California for Lifer Parole Suitability Hearings, including Youth and Elderly hearings. She can be reached at 619-233-3688. She has dedicated the last 15 years of her practice to assist Lifers. She has been invited to different venue to speak including the Central California Appellate Program (CCAP), the Family of the Incarcerated, and several prisons. Her last prison presentation was with her whole staff at the women prison in Corona:  CIW.  

The Renegade Attorney is a Wild Card in the Post-Conviction legal arena and the Parole Suitability Administrative Hearings. Her client testimonials can be reviewed at Attorney Letarte's Testimonial Board. She comes up with creative arguments and does not always play by the "rule" but then neither does CDCR!  Every advantage counts and can make the difference between a Denial or a Grant of Parole.

Attorney Letarte's  Education (below) speaks for itself, including earning a 3rd Master's degree: Master of Science in Forensic Psychology (2011) to have an edge arguing incorrect conclusions from BPH's  Forensic Assessment Division (FAD) psychologists Risk Assessment evaluation, during the Parole Suitability Hearings.

•  2011  M.S.     Forensic Psychology, Walden University, MN
•  2003  LL.M.   Criminal, University of San Diego Law, CA
•  1996  J.D.     Thomas Jefferson, School of Law, SD, CA and  Cambridge University,  England
•  1991  M.B.A. University of Redlands, Redlands, CA
•  1979  B.S.     Computer Science, Florida Atlantic Univ. FL 
   1976  A.A.       Associate of Arts, Palm Bch Jr. College, FL
   

The CSP-SAC Lifer Group (and Teacher)  invited Attorney Letarte to provide information and insight into the Parole Suitability Hearing, at the prison. She has accepted the invitation from CDCR (CSP-SAC) and will be flying to Sacramento the week of May 30, 2016 for the June 4th, 2016 free seminar.

Lifer PAROLE PACKET Preparation for all BPH Parole Hearings (& Youth SB261 or Elderly)

This BLOG (an unusual posting) contains a quick summary of  our NEW Parole Packet that was compiled by Attorney  Diane T. Letarte (619-233-3688 or 888-200-8385) and used with her clients (for many years) at the Parole Suitability Hearings. Many phone calls have come in to our office inquiring about the Parole Packet that we use. We finally can offer this Parole Packet for $59 and downloadable Immediately from Attorney Letarte's Website under Legal Services search for Lifer Parole Packet immediate download. The packet contains over 10 different SAMPLE support letters, including a Sample for Youth Offender Parole Hearing (YOPH)

NOTE: Part of the Proceeds ($) from the sales of the Parole Packet are DONATED to The Francisco Homes: a transitional housing for Lifers, which in turn will help other Lifers. Francisco Homes can be reached at info@thefranciscohomes.org or by Phone at (323) 293-1111.

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

Attorney Letarte accumulated her experience (15+ years) by doing well over 1000+ Parole Hearings in front of many different Governor Appointed Commissioners. This Parole Packet contains several sample Support Letters, among other Resources such as Transitional Home Contacts. In addition, it offers a Table of Contents (TOC) presentation format, that the inmate can use at their Parole Hearing. The Format should streamline the Post-Conviction factors presented to the Commissioners including self-help classes, Education,  programming, Apology Letters, Relapse Prevention Plan, among others. All the achievements earned can be presented in an abbreviated format to fit in the 2 - 3 hour Parole Suitability Hearing.

The Relapse Prevention Plans (RPP) SAMPLES allow a framework for 1) substance abuse avoidance as well as 2) criminal conduct avoidance,  whichever bad behavior that needs to be identified via triggers (red flag, warning signs) before it re-occurs. The RPP should provide an action plan the inmate is ready to execute by using the Law of Replacement principles to avoid the need for illegal substance usage or criminal behavior.

The Parole Packet  can also be "snail" mail to the inmate because the TOC (blank forms) can be filled out by hand (yep! the old fashion way.) If you only want the sample letters portion of the Packet, then see Product ($9.99) entitled "SAMPLE LETTERs"  or search the Key word SAMPLE  in our RenegadeAttorney,com website.

Sometimes a GOOD PRESENTATION and great Support Letters (at a Parole Hearing) makes a difference between a Grant of Parole and a 3-year Denial.  The Packet makes a Positive Statement about the inmates Readiness to re-integrate in the Free Community.

Gilman v. Brown (2/22/2016): Reverse the District Crt & finds Marsy's Law P9 & P89 still valid.

The long awaited GILMAN Decision from the Oral Argument that presented last Summer 2015.
See GILMAN  (2/22/2016)  Decision at Attorney Letarte's website

Gilman v. Brown (2/22/2016)     2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 3035
Plaintiff: (The Inmates) Monica Knoxx (argued), et al. She presented a very good Oral argument last year at the 9th Circuit in San Francisco, California;  WATCH 2015  Oral argument.

Defendants: (The People) Defendant: Christopher John Rench (argued) and Maria G. Chan, Deputy Attorneys General, California Department of Justice, Sacramento, California, et al.

Circuit Judges were Lawrence K. Karlton, Senior District Judge, Presiding Before: Susan P. Graber, Consuelo M. Callahan, and Carlos T. Bea. 

Short Summary: Changes to California's parole system through Prop 89 and Prop 9 did not result in ex post facto violations.Thus, Marsys' Law (aka Prop 9) is still valid law as is P89, the 1988 Governor's veto power to reverse the Board of Parole Hearing's decision. 

Prior District Court's Bench Trial was REVERSED:
After a bench trial, the district court found in favor of the plaintiffs. As to the class members who were convicted of crimes committed before the passage of Proposition 89, the district court enjoined the Governor from imposing a longer sentence than that required by application of the same factors the Board of Parole Hearings is required to consider. The district court further ordered the Board of Parole Hearings, after denying a class member parole, to schedule that inmate’s next parole hearing according to the deferral
periods in place before the passage of Proposition 9.

BOTTOM LINE: The 9th Circuit Court reversed the District Court's decision that was previously favorable to the inmates. The panel reversed the district court’s bench trial judgment and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the State of California in an action brought by California inmates under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking to stop the application of Propositions 89 and 9, which had amended the State’s Constitution and Penal Code as it relates to the parole system.

PROP 9: MARSY'S LAW
The 9th Circuit Decision  goes through some great mental gymnastic to state that the District Court applied the wrong standard, it committed legal error, and the resulting factual findings are clearly erroneous. Basically stating that the statistics and anecdotes derived from the Rutherford litigation, are irrelevant in part because those (pre-prop9) inmates could have been granted a hearing via the PTA procedure. 9th Circuit goes on to say that any suggestion that Proposition 9 created a significant risk of lengthened incarceration for those inmates is thus just conjectural!

PROP 89: GOVERNOR'S VETO POWER
The 9th Cir. states that the district court did not point to evidence that Governors had reversed the Board other than on the basis of the same factors which the parole authority is required to consider.  Cal. Const. art. V, § 8(b). Nor did Gilman offer evidence showing that he would have received parole before the enactment of Proposition 89, and that Proposition 89 changed that result. Therefore, Proposition 89 remains only a transfer of decision making power, which does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.

STAY TUNED: After communication with Monica Knox  (Federal Defender for Inmates)- it appears she will petition for a rehearing En Banc on both the P9 and P89..... and possibly Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on any of the viable claims.        GO get them Monica!