In re Vicks, In re Morganti pushes BOARD to Automatic review on 3 year Denials

Some helpful statistics: A lion's share (60%) of parole suitability denials are for 3 years. Remembering that since the implementation of Marsy's Law (aka Prop 9) the denials can be for 3, 5, 7, 10, 15 years.

What do you do if you get denied - an inmate can file on their own BPH 1045 form to Petition the BOARD to advance the Hearings earlier than the denied amount of years. Given the new increase in Grant rates - inmates are encouraged to file the PTA, regardless of the New procedures implemented by the BOARD (see below)

In 2012 inmates filed 329 Petition To Advance (PTA) their hearings,  29 were granted and hearings moved forward. In the first half of 2013,  251 PTAs were filed by inmates, 129 have been approved and the hearing advanced. This shows an increase from an 8% grants to 52% grants.

From now on Lifers who receive a 3 year denial of parole will get an automatic review of their hearing and possible chance to advance the next hearing ahead of the 3 years under a new policy put into effect recently by the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH). This process should not prevent inmates from filing the BPH 1045 Petition to Advance (PTA) at any time during the 3 year period. The rule of thumb has been to file the PTA 1/2 into the number of years that you were denied. For example, if you were denied 3 years, file the PTA after 1.5 years - showing all the new "change in circumstances or new information" that would warrant an early Grant of the hearing.

When Marsy’s Law passed in 2008 and expanded the parole denial range from 1 to 5 years up to 3 to 15 years several legal actions were filed seeking to have this provision of Marsy’s invalidated as ex post facto. The most recent and well known case that fought to find a violation of the Ex Post Facto legal principal (with Marsy's Law) was lost at the CA Supreme Court.  In Re Vicks, was decided in April 2013, with the court ruling the increased denial period was not ex post facto. The Court reasoned that there was a "safety valve" by allowing the inmates [with long denial period] to file the BPH 1045 form to request an earlier Parole Hearing, through the PTA process.  In Re Morganti, emphasized that it would be wise of the BOARD to start  review of denials, on its own accord. Hence, the new BPH policy. 

These reviews will be conducted approximately 1-year after the 3-year denial, at the Board of Parole  Hearings (BPH)  headquarters in Sacramento, by Deputy Commissioners, whose primary job will be to review, consider and decide on these potential hearing advancements. The standards seems to remain the same as the current BPH 1045 Petition requirements. If a “change in circumstances or new information” and “after considering views and interests of victims,” there exists a “reasonable likelihood that consideration of public and victim’s safety does not require the additional incarceration,” a hearing date will be advanced.

The decision on whether to advance a hearing or not would therefore depend on different requirements. During the decision process the victims would be allowed to write to the Commissioners to relay their view on the advance hearing. The actual time to schedule the hearing will vary depending if there are Victims' Next of Kin (VNOK) that would need to be NOTIFIED several months ahead of time. 

By the time all the hoops are jumped through and a Hearing date is Advanced -one can expect- the next hearing to be scheduled approximately 18 months from the last hearing. We will see similar time frame delays  to the next scheduled hearings from a Governor reversal of a grant - 18  months.

A big thank you to Vanessa Nelson (LSA, lifersupportalliance@gmail.com) for providing the bulk of the statistics and the information.

SB 260-POSSIBLE RELIEF FOR LIFERS SENTENCED AS JUVENILES

 The article below is mostly a reprint from the LSA - Life Support Alliance group Newsletter. A big thank you to Vanessa Nelson for all her hard work in Support of the LIFERS.

Sister Mary Sean Hodges, Attorney Diane Letarte, Vanessa Nelson

Senate Bill 9 (also called SB 9) became California law in January 2013. This law gives a second chance to most people who were under the age of 18 at the time of their crime and sentenced to life without parole. They can ask the court for a new sentencing hearing. At that hearing, they will have the chance of getting a new sentence with the possibility of parole. SB 9 is in the California Penal Code section 1170(d). SB 9 allows a person who was under 18 years old at the time of a crime and sentenced to life without parole to submit a request to have a new sentencing hearing.

SB 260, introduced by Sen. Loni Hancock (D-Petaluma) is a companion piece to SB 9, Sen. Leland Yee’s bill passed last year that offered relief to those sentenced to LWOP as juveniles. SB 260, not yet fully passed by the legislature or signed by Gov. Brown, is a bi-furcated bill, meaning it offers two levels of action. It addresses all those sentenced to life with the possibility of parole and who were under 18 years of age at the time of the crime, offering the chance to have their sentences reviewed for possible reduction from the life term. Under current provisions SB 260 would require the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) to hold a Youth Opportunity Review Hearing,

Those convicted of a non-homicide (attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder or manslaughter) and sentenced to a determinate term of 40 years or less or an indeterminate term with a base term of 40 years or less could be offered the Youth Opportunity Review Hearing during the 15th year of incarceration.

Those with the same category of offenses but sentenced to or with a base term of more than 40 years will be considered during the 20th year of imprisonment.

For those with a second degree homicide conviction, the hearings will be held during the 15th year inside and for those with a first degree murder conviction, in the 25th year of their prison term. The bill also provides for a review of circumstances 5 years prior to the window for the Youth Opportunity Hearing, similar to the documentation hearings, to provide information on parole hearings and suitability requirements. If the youth hearing does not result in a recommendation for parole the denial time will be limited to 3 years.

There are other factors included in the language of SB 260 relating to what factors shall be considered in the Youth Opportunity Review Hearing, including the exclusion of those convicted under 3 Strikes from consideration under the bill or those convicted for first degree murder with special circumstances.


Having already cleared the Senate and the Assembly Public Safety Committee SB 260 will be heard in Assembly Appropriations Committee the second or third week in August, when the legislature returns from recess.

FIRST Annual LIFER Celebration by: ECC at Buena Park 6/8/2013

A big THANK YOU to Keith Chandler and Gary "red dog" Eccher (ECC Consulting) for Sponsoring the FIRST Annual LIFER Celebration at Boisseranc Park in Buena Park, CA.


A BIG CONGRATULATIONS to the Survivors of the California Department of Correctional and Rehabilitation (CDCR).

LIFERS at BBQ

Below are just some of the Photos from the BBQ. Special guest Appearance included Sister Mary Sean Hodges (Francisco home and The Partnership for Re-Entry Program (PREP) was established in 2002), Venessa Nelson (Vanessa Nelson heads the Life Support Alliance, which advocates for the fair and unbiased consideration of parole dates for inmates sentenced to life), Attorney Michael Beckman and Family, Attorney Marilyn Spivey, our own Renegade Attorney Diane T.  Letarte with the Post-Conviction Angels (No blondes here!) Yolanda Navarro and Attorney Serena Salinas.

Sister Mary Sean Hodges, Renegade Attorney Letarte, Venessa Nelson)

(L to R, Yolanda Navarro, Red Dog, Attorney Salinas, Keith Chandler, Renegade Attorney Letarte

Atty Salinas, Mr. Trujillo, Atty Letarte, "Doc" Hales and his wife Pam

Mr. Rosenkrantz and Atty Salinas

For those of you that are new to the LIFER Legal work.....here is a Summary of this Significant battle against the Board of Prison Terms' and Governor Davis's lifer parole policies by Mr. Rosenkrantz  over 13 years ago........

In re Rosenkrantz (BPT):

In an on-going battle against the Board of Prison Terms' and Governor Davis's lifer parole policies, a California Court of Appeals condemned the BPT for failing to fairly consider evidence of a life prisoner's suitability for parole, and ordered the BPT to re-hear the prisoner's case. (In re Rosenkrantz (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 409) The BPT subsequently found Mr. Rosenkrantz suitable for parole, but the Governor blocked parole. The prisoner filed an amended habeas petition naming the Governor as a defendant, and on June 21, 2001, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge issued an order for Mr. Rosenkrantz's release, finding that he had been denied an individualized determination of suitability and that the Governor's "no parole" policy violated due process. The state appealed the order and the California Supreme Court granted a stay of the Los Angeles Court's order pending appeal. In January 2002, the Court of Appeal affirmed the order for Mr. Rosenkrantz's release. The state sought review in the California Supreme Court; in an opinion isssued December 16, 2002, the Court denied the challenge to the Governor's "No-Parole" policy, setting back many model life prisoners' hopes for parole. The case is published at (2002) 29 Cal.4th 616. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case on April 21, 2003.

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

The Picnic was wonderful, tons of food, great Sunny Location, and even greater people attending the Celebration. In addition it was a great pleasure to see some of my Lifer Clients in their regular "street clothes".   :-)

Attorney Michael Beckman ... and the new addition to the Family.

Yolanda Navarro and Sister Mary Sean Hodges