2018 YOUTH OFFENDER cases to WATCH:
1) In re Poole ____ Cal.App.5th ____
2) In re Palmer, 27 Cal. App. 5th 120
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.
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)