In re Shaputis II (12/29/2011): The California Supreme Court that negatively impact the Lifer Participation in Parole Hearings and Psychological Evaluation. See Shaputis II Summary at my Blog.
In re Shaputis (2008) 44 Cal. 4th 1241
This is the companion case to Sandra Lawrence. Richard Shaputis appears to be the “take” portion of the “give and take” offered up by the California Supreme Court in August 2008 to demonstrate that its decision in Lawrence does not “open the flood gates” of parole for lifer inmates. In reversing the appellate court’s grant of parole to Mr. Shaputis, the Supreme Court concluded that because of a “lack of insight” into the commitment offense and a pattern of “sometimes violent behavior,” the inmate continues (currently) to be an “unreasonable risk” to public safety.
From a practical standpoint, the attorneys representing Lifers will need to closely scrutinize any and all Psychological evidence presented at the parole hearings. The BPH has their own contracted Forensic Psychologists to interview the inmates in a non-confidential setting to provide a report and recommendation as to the risk of violence in society if the inmate is release. The inmate’s psychological evaluation is now being given more weight and on many occasions is used to eviscerate the insight previously gained by the inmates (by prior positive psychological evaluations) in order to shoehorn the In re Shaputis decision to BPH’s favor, for denying parole.
California Case Law
2024 YOUTH OFFENDER not extended to LWOP:
People v. Hardin (3/4/2024):
Young adults ages 18-26 convicted of murder can be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, (LWOP) the California Supreme Court ruled in a 5-2 decision this year, rejecting arguments that they should be considered for parole decades later after becoming more mature and less impulsive.
Ultimately, the court deferred to the legislature to fix this problem.
UPDATE: Gilman vs Brown (2/22/16) (2016 U.S. App Lexis 3035)
SUMMARY: Changes to California's parole system through Prop 89 and Prop 9 did not result in ex post facto violations.Thus, Marsy's Law (aka Prop 9) is still valid law as is P89, which is the 1988 Governor's veto power to reverse the Board of Parole Hearings' decision.
Gilman vs Brown (2/28/14) CIV. S-05-830 LKK/CKD
SUMMARY: Plaintiffs assert that Propositions 9 and 89 have retrospectively increased their punishments, in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S.
Constitution
UPDATE: BUTLER was reversed and NO LONGER requires a BASE TERM calculation by the Parole Board (BPH).
In re ROY BUTLER (12/16/13) -- Case Nos. A139411 & A137273 Alameda County Case No. 91694B (Mandated Base Term Calculation)
In summary, the BUTLER Court forces the Parole Board to calculate the base term of life prisoners at their Initial Hearings
People v. Hardin (3/4/2024):
Young adults ages 18-26 convicted of murder can be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, (LWOP) the California Supreme Court ruled in a 5-2 decision this year, rejecting arguments that they should be considered for parole decades later after becoming more mature and less impulsive.
Ultimately, the court deferred to the legislature to fix this problem.
UPDATE: Gilman vs Brown (2/22/16) (2016 U.S. App Lexis 3035)
SUMMARY: Changes to California's parole system through Prop 89 and Prop 9 did not result in ex post facto violations.Thus, Marsy's Law (aka Prop 9) is still valid law as is P89, which is the 1988 Governor's veto power to reverse the Board of Parole Hearings' decision.
Gilman vs Brown (2/28/14) CIV. S-05-830 LKK/CKD
SUMMARY: Plaintiffs assert that Propositions 9 and 89 have retrospectively increased their punishments, in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S.
Constitution
UPDATE: BUTLER was reversed and NO LONGER requires a BASE TERM calculation by the Parole Board (BPH).
In re ROY BUTLER (12/16/13) -- Case Nos. A139411 & A137273 Alameda County Case No. 91694B (Mandated Base Term Calculation)
In summary, the BUTLER Court forces the Parole Board to calculate the base term of life prisoners at their Initial Hearings
UPDATE: 2/5/2016: Mr. Vicks hired Attorney Letarte for his 2015 Parole Hearing where he was found suitable. Grant was subsequently reversed by Gov. to a 2/5/2016 Rescission Hearing and again Attorney Letarte won his Hearing.
3/4/2013: In re VICKS: Reversed by the CA Supreme Court. In Summary, Marsy's Law will stay the Law for now. See Attorney Diane Letarte's BLOG
In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal. 4th 1181:
Inmates have a protected liberty interest in parole. Due process guarantees a meaningful judicial review and that the judicial standard of review for a BPH denial of parole and/or the Governor’s reversal of Parole Grant remains the “some evidence” standard of review.
Some clarification received by this case is that a denial (or reversal by the Governor) of a parole grant must be based on “an assessment of an inmate’s current dangerousness. The commitment offense ALONE can not be used to deny parole UNLESS, there is a nexus between the immutable factors and the inmate’s current dangerousness. The unsuitability factors used at a Lifer parole hearing can be reviewed under 15 CCR §2402.
From a practical point, the attorney representing the inmates at their lifer parole hearing must make sure that they properly present all the positive (suitability) factors.
The California Supreme Court approved the decision of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Biggs v. Terhune (2003) 336 F.3d 910. This is a federal landmark case in the Parole process.
Valdivia v. Davis (2002) * 206 F.Supp.2d 1068
This one is an older federal case where the court found that that delays in the parole revocation process violated due process protections. (Valdivia v. Davis (E.D. 2002).) As a result, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (aka CDCR) and Board of Parole Hearings (aka BPH, old name BPT) agreed to a (2007) stipulated permanent injunction to improve the timeliness of parole revocation proceedings.
The Remedial Plan adopted under the injunction includes provisions for using alternative sanctions for minor parole violations, a probable cause hearing no more than 10 business days after a parolee is notified of charges, a revocation hearing no later than 35 days after a parole hold is placed, and appointment of attorneys to represent all parolees facing revocation proceedings.
Armstrong v. Davis (2001)* 275 F.3d 849
A federal District Court judge issued an injunction, ordering the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) to remedy its shocking and appalling failure to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) during parole hearings.
The order came after a trial during which one prisoner told of having to leave his wheelchair behind to crawl upstairs to a hearing, a deaf prisoner told the judge he was shackled during his hearing and could not communicate with the sign language interpreter, and a blind inmate said he was offered no help with complicated written materials. The injunction was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
*(some contribution from www.prisonlaw.com)
PROP 57 Passed: Any person convicted of a nonviolent felony offense and sentenced to state prison shall be eligible for Parole Consideration via the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) after completing the full term for his or her primary offense.
Prop 57 Litigation on Credits earned (2024): See our Blog-link
Hiring an experienced attorney with Post-conviction expertise such as (Attorney Diane T. Letarte, MBA, LLM, MS) may make the difference in a successful Parole Hearing. Our Office no longer accepts Court Re-sentencing case.
PROP 47 DEADLINE 11/4/2017
You must file a Petition asking the Court to re-sentence your (non-serious, non-violent) felony to a misdemeanor before November 4, 2017 DEADLINE.
REMEMBER: Even person serving two or three Strikes term for one of the crimes affected by Prop 47, can ask for reduction of that to a misdemeanor via Penal Code 1170.18. The re-sentencing is a “post-conviction release proceeding” under Cal. Const. art. I, § 28.
If the court determines that petitioner is eligible for resentencing, the court will give a reduced sentence, unless the petitioner would pose an “unreasonable risk … to public safety", PC 1170 et al.
=====================================PROP 36 filing DEADLINE expired 11/6/2014
WHAT TO DO?The Prop-36 QUESTIONNAIRE may help you in analyzing your petition and or your case. Our office is no longer accepting P36 Petition due to the expiration of the DEADLINE. Please contact your local Public Defender for assistance with P36 Petition.
1080 Park Blvd., Ste 1008 Copyright © Law Offices of Diane T. Letarte. All rights Reserved.
San Diego, CA 92101
619-233-3688, Fax: 619-233-3689 (e-fax: 888-400-6082) dletarte@earthlink.net