LSA offers free "live" Seminars for Lifers to prepare for their Parole Hearing; at RJ Donovan August 25, 26, 27: Tell your RJD Loved ones to sign up.

Life Support Alliance (LSA) returning to Prison to give their impactful Lifer Workshop: Get your Loved ones involved. 

Now that Covid19 is subsiding and more institutions are allowing Program providers into the prisons to bring "live" presentations; Life Support Alliance (LSA) is getting invitations to bring their impactful workshops. Tell Your Loved Ones to sign-up for the classes before it fills up.

 IT IS FREE and conducted on the YARDS at the prison.

SAVE THE DATES:

RJ Donovan San Diego; Friday, Saturday, and Sunday starting August 25* to 27 of 2023. 

** Watch for a Special RJD Appearance by Attorney Diane Letarte  at one or more sessions.

The idea is to try to present the class to as many inmates, by visiting as many Yards as possible, in the RJD institution during those 3-days. Some of the workshops include: Unraveling a Parole Hearing, Connecting the Dots, the Amends Project (e.g. how to write apology letters), among others.

LSA travels to the prisons to give their workshops in-person to all Long Term Inmates (i.e. Lifers, Youth Offender, Elderly hearings, DSL, ISL) that are going to a Parole Suitability Hearing. The workshop will help them get prepared for the Parole Hearing. LSA staff will go where they have the most interested people. This month of August 2023; it will be at RJ Donovan institution.

Specifically LSA will normally prioritize the institutions who register the most memberships (i.e. interest)! 

 If you are a Loved Ones in the free community then sign up to be a Free member of the Life Support Alliance (LSA). You will get the Free Newsletter (Lifer*Line) each month in your email inbox. The other way is to text the word “JOIN” to their automated system at 916-702-7344; which will return a link. Use the link to fill out the membership registration, right from the phone. 

The membership “count” will indicate which Prisons should get the in-person workshop first. You can also go to LSA’s website at www.lifesupportalliance.Org. Scroll to the bottom of the page and hit the “JOIN” button to get the same form to fill out. Fill out the form with the inmates’ name and the prison location. 

 LSA can be contacted via their email address info@lifesupportalliance.org and 

LSA PO BOX 277 

Rancho Cordova, 

CA 95711 

 

Thank You to LSA for all of what they do to assist the inmate population get home.

Senate Bill 81 would be a game changer for all Parole Candidates that get Denied AFTER reaching their Minimum Eligible Parole Date (MEPD)

 

Amended  IN  Assembly  June 21, 2023

Amended  IN  Senate  May 23, 2023

Amended  IN  Senate  March 22, 2023

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2023–2024 REGULAR SESSION

                                                Senate Bill  No. 81

Introduced by Senators Skinner and Becker

January 12, 2023

An act to amend Section 3041 of, and to add Section 3041.8 to, the Penal Code, relating to parole.

 

Senate Bill 81 (SB 81) is a bill that was introduced in the California State Senate in 2023. The bill would add Section 3041.8 to the Penal Code, relating to parole. Note that this Bill will not be retroactive. Please note that our July summary may still be Amended beyond the posting of our BLOG. As of July 3rd, 2023, below is what SB81 looks like.

If your loved one has gone to the Board and has been denied at least once, then most likely by the next hearing; the Minimum Eligible Parole Date will have been exceeded. It may be a good idea to postpone their 2023 parole hearing until 2024. Make sure to review this with an attorney, before postponing the next hearing. This can be case specific depending on the circumstance of the case. If the Law Office of Diane T. Letarte is retained, we take into account this strategy based on the specific factors of our client's case. 

SB 81 is currently in the California State Assembly. If it is passed by the Assembly and signed by the Governor, it would go into effect on January 1, 2024. 

Here are some of the key provisions of SB 81: 

* Specifically, SB 81 would require the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) to notify a parole candidate who has been denied parole that they have a right to petition for habeas relief from a court.

* A parole candidate may have the petition heard in either the county of conviction or in the county in which the parole candidate is incarcerated. To be allowed to pick the jurisdiction to file the Writ (WHC) can be very helpful to avoid some very conservative counties!

* SB 81 would also establish that a parole candidate who has reached their minimum eligible parole date has made a fundamental vested interest in being released on parole. This includes any ONE of the minimum parole dates such as MEPD, YPED, and EPED for youth offenders and elderly parole hearings. This means a parole candidate has made a prima facie case for relief and the reviewing court may not summarily deny a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to this section.

* SB 81 would require a court reviewing a petition for habeas relief based on a parole denial to uphold the decision to deny parole only if the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the person presents a current, unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. 

* The Bill would require the court to, upon request, appoint FREE counsel to a parole candidate who has reached their minimum eligible parole date, who petitions the court for habeas relief after being denied parole. 

* The Court may order whatever relief as the case may require, including an Order for a new parole hearing, with or without limitations on what evidence the Board of Parole Hearings may consider.

In re Van Houten (5/30/23): youngest of Manson's devotees found the Court of Appeal on her side: challenging Governor Gavin Newsom’s reversal of her 2020 grant of parole

In re Van Houten Docket: B320098 (Second Appellate District) Opinion 5/30/2023. 

  BACKGROUND INFORMATION ====== 

 A California appeals court overruled Governor Gavin Newsom on Tuesday to find Leslie Van Houten, one of Charles Manson's murderous "family" of followers, entitled to parole after more than 50 years in prison for her part in the cult's 1969 killing spree. Van Houten has spent more than half of her life in prison for her part in the murder (then 19, a Youth Offender) of Rosemary and Leno La Bianca, a supermarket executive. 

 A jury convicted Van Houten in 1971 of two counts of first-degree murder and one count of conspiracy to commit murder. She was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole. 

Van Houten, now 73, the youngest of Manson's devotees, has been recommended for early release by the state parole board on five occasions since 2016, but was denied three times by Newsom and twice by his predecessor, fellow Democrat Jerry Brown. 

This decision appears to marks the first time a court has overruled a governor's denial of parole to a Manson follower. The California appeals court said that Leslie Van Houten, who participated in two killings at the direction of cult leader Charles Manson in 1969, should be released from prison on parole.

 As we remember --> Manson, died in prison in 2017 at age 83, and directed his mostly young and female followers to murder seven people, including actress Sharon Tate, in August 1969 in what prosecutors said was part of a plan to incite a race war. I

  IN COURT ======= 

Petitioner (Leslie Van Houten ) petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging Governor Gavin Newsom’s reversal of her 2020 grant of parole. Petitioner is serving concurrent sentences of seven years to life for the 1969 murders which she committed with other members of a cult led by Charles Manson. This is the fourth time a governor has reversed Petitioner’s parole. 

The Second Appellate District granted Petitioner’s petition. The court held that there is no evidence to support the Governor’s conclusions. The court explained that Petitioner provided an extensive explanation as to the causative factors leading to her involvement with Manson and the commission of the murders, and the record does not support a conclusion that there are hidden factors for which Petitioner has failed to account. 

The court wrote that the Governor’s finding of inconsistencies between Petitioner’s statements now and at the time of the murders fails to account for the decades of therapy, self-help programming, and reflection Petitioner has undergone in the past 50 years. The historical factors identified in the comprehensive risk assessment (CRA) are the sort of immutable circumstances the California Supreme Court (In re Lawrence, 2008) has held cannot support a finding of current dangerousness when there is extensive evidence of rehabilitation and other strong indicators of parole suitability, all of which Petitioner has demonstrated. 

Newsom now has 10 days to request that California Attorney General Rob Bonta petition the California Supreme Court to stop her release. If the state Supreme Court denies it, the appellate court’s decision to parole Van Houten stands and it could be a matter of weeks before she is set free under parole,