Home Page | SiteTree | Contact Us | Search | Cart
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
California Case Law
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.
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:
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 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 11/6/2014WHAT 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) firstname.lastname@example.org