Free Motion to Dismiss - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-03313-MMC

Document 9-4

Filed 02/11/2008

Page 1 of 22

/
!

EXHIBIT C

Case 3:07-cv-03313-MMC
_...._ .- .. _
...,...----~---

Document 9-4

Filed 02/11/2008

Page 2 of 22

1
1

1

1 1 1 1

Name" 'Address

HIGUEL MOLINA
P.O. BOX 705 WA-324

MC·275

1 1

,
!
" I
i

CTF-North Facility Soledad, Ca.
CDCor ID Number

93960 D-21051

'FUll
APR 1 4 2OiJ3
'

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

t

County of San Luis Ooispo, Ca.
. (Court)

MIGUEL MOLINA
Petitioner' vs.
~::.

PETITION FORWRITOF HABEAS CORPUS

GRAY DAVIS & JIM HAMLET'
, Respondent

INSTRUCTiONS -'- READ CAREFULLY
° If you are challenging an order of commitment or a criminal conviction and are filing this petition In the
Superior Court, you should file It In the county that made thll ?rder. you should file It In the county In which you are confined. . '

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

° If you are challenging the conditions of your confinement and are filing this petition In the Superior Court, °
Readthe entireform before answering any questions. correct Because the petition indudes a verifiCation, the making of a statement that youknowis falsemayresultin a conviction for peJjury, . . . . , . Answerall applicable questionsin theproperspaces. If you needadditional space.add an extrapageand indicatethatyour answeris 'contlnuedon additional page."

° Thjs petition mustbe clearly hand"';rittenin inkor typed.You should exercise careto ma~'sure all an~ers are true and

·

° If you arefiling thispetition'lnthe SuperiorCourt, you needfile onlyJl18 originai unless local rulesrequire additional copies·
.Many courts reqUire more,copies. · · · · . If you arefiling thispetitionin the Courtof Appeal. file the original and foiJr copies. If you are filing thispetitionIn th~ Callfo~ia 'supremeCour(file theoriginaland thlrt~en copies. Notifythe Clerkof the Court in writingif you changeyour address after filingyourpetition·. In most cases, 'the law requiresservice of a copy of the petitionon the.dlstrict atlorrll'lY. cityattorney, or clty prosecutor. See . . PenalCode'section 1475 and Govemment Codesection72193. You may servethe copyby mail.

Approved byth~ Judicial Council ~fcalifomia for useunder Rules56.5and 201(h)(1)of the Callfoml~ Rules of Court[as amended effective January1, 1999]. SUbsequent amendments to Rule44(b) maychange the numberof copiesto be fumished the Supreme CourtandCourtof Appeal.. . . '
Form Appro\lOd by !he
Judlc:1af CoYnc:i of California C·215(R... Jo""lIIYI, 19991

PETITION FORWRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

... WEST
· ·GROUP

PenaICode.§ '473etuq.: eel. RuleaatCourt. lUis_ 56.5, 201(h)

OpUonaCfonn

1

1

1

Case 3:07-cv-03313-MMC

Document 9-4

Filed 02/11/2008

Page 3 of 22

2

..... v ·

:rhls petition concerns:

o
D

A conviction

.o
.
D

Parole

A sentence
.
Jailor prtsonconditlons , Other (speci(y):

D·Cr~dits
prison dlsclpline

o

[Jg

Governors ReviwP:ursuant to ~.G; 3041.2

1. Your name:

MIGUEL MOLINA CTF-North Soledad, Ca. D Civil Commitment

·2. Where are you incarcerated?, '

,3. Why are you I,"! custody?
Answer subdivisions

,CiJ Criminal Conviction·
,

a, through I. to the best. ofYour ability. .

a. State reason for civil commitment or, ifcrimlnalconviction, state nature of offense and erihancements (for example, "robbery with use of a deadly weapon"). . , Murder 2nd

.!

-b.. Penal or other code sections: _P_._C_._1_8_7_-'.c. Na'!le, and location of sentencing or committing court:

-"San Luis Obispo, ·Ca.

- - - - - -_ _- - - -

'd. Case number:
;,
"

13298 '_

e. Date convicted or committed: f. Date sentenced: 12/18/85

-------:-----'-----~--'------'--------'---' -'-_

g. Length of sentence: _1...:5_-...:L::..i::..f_e_-'-_'h. When do you expect to be released? ~L::.~::.·f::.e.:..;.P::.::.r;:;i;:;s.:,o;:;n.:,e;:;r

-----'---'--'--_------

i. Were you:represented by counsel in the tri~1 court?·

[i] Yes.

0

'Np. If yes, state the attomey's name an>!addreSj;:

.

. .

:

.

4. What was the LAST plea you entered? (ch~kone)
D Not gUilty'

,DO Guilty 0

Nolo

Cont~ndere

DOOer: _--,--,_ _- ' - - - - - - , - - - - - . , . _ - - , -

5. If you pleaded not guilty, What kind of trial did you have?

o

jury

D

Judge without a j u r y D Submitted on

tra~script ,0 Awaiting trial

,MC!-275 [Rev.J8n~ary 1, 1999]

PETITION· FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Pase two of a1x .

Case 3:07-cv-03313-MMC

Document 9-4

Filed 02/11/2008

Page 4 of 22

3
( .

.r
' .· i

6. GROUNDS FORREUEF . . '.' . . . Ground 1: State briefly the ground on which you base your claim for relief. For example; 'the trial court imposed an illegal . enhancement.' (If you havea.dditional groundsfor relief, usa a separatepage for eachground. Stateground 2 on page four. For ~ additionalgrounds, make. copies of page four and number the addiUonal groundsin orrJer.) .

See .attached Petition

a. Supporting facts: Tell your .story briefly without citing eases or law; If you are challenging the legaliiyof your convlcnon, describe the facts upon which your .conviction is based. Ifnecessary,attach additional pages. CAUTION: You must state facts, not conclusions. For example, If you are claiming incompeience of counsel you must state facts specifically setting forth what your attorney did or failed to do and how that affectea your trial; Failure to allege sufficient facts will result in the denial of your petition; (See In re Swain (1949) 3~Cal.2d 300, 304.) A rule of thumb to follow Is: Who did exacUy whatto violate your rights'at what time (When) or place (where). (If available! a!tachdeclaratlons, relevant records, transcripts, or otherdocuments sUp'porting your claim.) .

See attached Petition

b. Supporting cases, rules, or other.authority (optional): . (Brieflydiscuss, or list by name and citation, the casesor other au/horiUes thatyou think are relevantto your claim. If necessary,

attachan
See

extra page.)

attached Petition

.j'

MC·275[R&:,!,. January 1. 19991

PETITION FORWRIT OF HABEASCORPUS

PageUu... oIalx

Case 3:07-cv-03313-MMC

Document 9-4

Filed 02/11/2008

Page 5 of 22

7. .Ground 2 or Ground

See attac~ed Petiti~n ·.

a. Supporting facts;

See att~ched Petition

, ,.

b. Supporting cases,rules,·or other auihority:

See attached Petition

MC·27S (Rev.Janua'l' 1, 19991

PETITION FORWRIT OF HABEASCORPUS

Case 3:07-cv-03313-MMC

Document 9-4

Filed 02/11/2008

Page 6 of 22

(
..
"'i
"

" ...,
'

_._-_.;._...

.... -

." .....~;, .. .:. >

.,

_-;.._.~..:..-:--:-:---'

8. Did you appeal from the ~nVictior., ntence, or cOmmitment? DVes. 'a. Name of court ("Court of Appeal·'or "Appellate Dept. of Superior Court"): '

IT.

,J.

If yes, give the following information:

b. Result: d. Case number or citation of opinion, if known: e. Issues raised: , (1)

c. Date of decisiOn:

--------

--'---:---~~-:---'---------:-'----:-'_---,.------

(2)_..,..-..,..--'--:-_ _- : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

-'-_

(3)~----:-----'-----..,..------'--.,--.,..--,....;-.-----_
f. Were you represented by counsel on appeal?,

0

Yes.

[i]

No. If yes, state the attorney's name and

addre~s: If known:

9. Did you seek review In the californiaSupreme Court? a. Result:

,0 Yes. ,[iJ No.

'If yes, give the following information: b. Date of decision: _ _-'-' _

\.

c. Case number or citation of opinion, if known: d. Issues raised:' (1) _ _"(2) _ _-'(3) "-,...-,..._~_'_
~__'_

.,.._'_ __'_

,-.,.. _ _

--'--'--'-----'----_' _

'i

10. If your petition makes a claim regarding your conviction, sentence" or commitment that you or your attorney did not make on appeal, explain why the claim was, not made on allpeal: '

11. Administrative Review:

' ' ,' a. If yotir petilion concerns, conditions of confinement or other claims for which there are administrative remedies, failure to exhaust administrative remedies may result in the deni,iI of your petition, even if it is otherwise meritorious. (See In re Musza/ski (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 500 [125 Cal.Rptr. 286].) Explain what administrative review you sought or explain ,:Why you did not seek such ' "'review:' , " ',' There is no

administrati~e appeal

to challenge a grant of Parole by

The Board'cif Prison Terms reversed by the 'Governor.

b. Old you seek the h'ighest I~vel of
MC·275 [Rev. Janulry 1. 1999J

admlnlstra~ive review available?

[]£I

Yes,

D

No.
Pageflv'!of.1x

Attachdocuments tliat showyou have exhausted youradmInistrative remedies.

PETITION FORWRITOF HABEAS CORPUS

- - - - - - - - - - - _ . - - - ._

.....

Case 3:07-cv-03313-MMC

Document 9-4

Filed 02/11/2008

Page 7 of 22

....

·.··0

i

.:.,.~ .. -~-_. -

I

'.

'to .'
. I

.: 1:L.Other .ihan have you filed commitment, or issue In any court? U 13. a. (1) Name of court _--,.

di~~~t appe~l,

~ other petitions,a~PJ~cati.ons,·ci~ ~otions with respect to this·c.onViCtiOn,
Yes. If yes, conti.nueWithnumber 13.

0

, · No. If no, skip to oumber.15.·

:--

-.,_ _-'-

-'-

~

(2) Nature of proceeding (for example, "habeas corpus petitiori"):' ,..-_...,..... (3}lssues raised: .(a) -'-

-'-_-'-_ _...,.....-----.,-

...,.....---'------'----,-------:-~...,.....------,----'-~
--:--'-~~_....:.___:_-..:...---------:.----,-:..._:__-...,.....-----------'--'--'------'.,....._--' -'-_ _- " --, --,-.,_ _--,_-'-., ...,..... -'---' _ ...,.....-'---.,--,_ _- ' - _ _

(b}-7-''-·

(~}H~sult (Attach orrle~ 0; explai~ Why ~navailable):.·~~
(5).Date of decision: ---' --,,..---'.,-

.,..-'-

b. (1) Name of court:

.(2) Nature .ofproceeding: _-'-_--,
(3}lssues raised: (a) -'-

-----'------_---'---_-----'--'---.. (4) Result (Attach order or explaIn why u~available):
.'
",

.. (b}-,,'-_-'-

(5) Dateof declslon;

--------,------------------.,..-O( motions. provide the sani~ infonnatlon on a separatepage.

c. For additl;nal prior petiticJlis, applications.

14. If any of the courts listed In number 13 held a hearing, stSte namecf court, date of hearing, nature of hearing, and result:' .

15. Explain any delay in the discovery of the claimed grounds' for relief and in r~ising the claims in this petition. (See
M~_~

No DeLay

."

tnreSwain (1949)

·16. Are you presently represented by counsel?

DYes.

Ci]

No. If yes,

sta~ the attorney's name and address, if known: .

"

.".

.

.

·.H. Do you have any petition, appeal, or other matt.erpending in any court?

DYes.

(::iJ

No. If yes, explain:

"18.' if this petition might/awfully have been made toa Io.wercourt, state the Circu~stances justifylog an application to this ~urt:
.'
. ,

.

"

.

. . '

.

. I, the undersigned, say: I am thepetitioner In this action·.1declare under penalty ofpe~ury

u~de~ the laws of the State of California that the foregoing allegations and statements are true and correct, except as to matters that are stated on myInformation and belief, arid as' .' . to those matters, I believe them to be true: . . . .

'. Date:'
MC·275 [R~. January 1, 19991

·r"'d~Of?-03
\J' /

: ~.

" J. ~. ~~(SIGNATUReOFPlITmONER)

,.
p8g ··ixof alx

PETITION t=0RWRITOF HABEAS CORPUS

Case 3:07-cv-03313-MMC

Document 9-4

Filed 02/11/2008

Page 8 of 22
'i I

.

,,',

APPENDIX .A
'.

.'

....

.

.

SUPE~IOR COUR~

OF

~Ar.IFORNIi

C()(mri OF SA..~ LUIS OBISPO

Miguel·· Molina, .: Petitioner
VS -. :
"

.

.,

Gray Davis,·. G~ve:z:.~or of. California, Jim Hamlet, Warden Correctional
.
. .

.

.

Training FaCiiity, Soledad, California Re!s.ponCients, ,

I INTRODUCTION
,"

,

'.

Petitioner, seeks review of

Miguel MoiinaD:"21 051 his habeas petit·ion.

is

a

state

prisoner 25,
.
,

who

On. September
.

2'002, The.
,

Petitioner was granted ·parole: by the Board of Prison Terms.

date was, 'approved, by the Review Board and sent to the· Goveinor for additional review. OnF'ebruary 21, .2003, acting pursuant to the ,California Goveinor Gray· Davis

his authbrityunderArtiCle

V

Section·8 has'

of

Constitution' and . PeriaL Code, 3041.2
. 1 . ....

ele.cted

Case 3:07-cv-03313-MMC

Document 9-4

Filed 02/11/2008

Page 9 of 22

·8
..

to

.

fo~

reverse. t.he : decision. of . the

.

the ·granting

panel. and

deny parole

petitioneri~ th~s

case.

II. PARTIES

p~titio~er- . ~1iguel
incarcerated · Soledad, at t,he· California.

/40lina

is

a

state· Prisqper

presently in of

Correctional

Training

Facility .. (CTF) is. the Governor

Respondent. Gray· Davis

the state of California.· aesponcientJim Hamleti.s
. -.
.~

t.he Warden Of

the Correctional Tq.iilingFacility (-CT·!?) .·at Soledad, ·Calif.ornia ·.

.

,I'

III STATEMENT OF FACTS

On

September

25,

2002~. Petitioner .Miguel· Molina~o:..h051
. .. .
",

appeared before ·the Board of.·prison Terms. for hd.s sUbsegu~n·t parole consideration hearing.

was July 31, 1994. He · (CDC) January 3,

wa~ ·receivedbythe O~1?artmentof ~orrections
.:

His . Minim~m

Elegible

Parole

Da·te

(MEPD)

, ' .

·1986

from· :the County

of. San

Luis '. Obispo. the

The

·offense.was .murder second;'. Cajse : Number

13298 and

~·erm

would

be .15. years to .life ·. The panel reviewed- all · concluded· that thePetitiorier is suitable

information and has parole and would to

for

not po s e. an unreasonable : risk of ·danger to society or : threat ... public · s ect.Lon safety . if .released 3041 (a) from prison pursuant a to Peria·l

Code of

;(bf.

The

panel: provided

detailed

account

the specific reasons they. found indetermi·ning that the· Petitioner is

-suitable .

for parole. and also·W'hy

he no

Lonq'ez' ·represents

a

I .\

/.

/

Case 3:07-cv-03313-MMC

Document 9-4

Filed 02/11/2008

Page 10 of 22

threat as,

to

public' safety'. Equally

(See

2002' 'Hearing fact

Transcripts 'marked that this hearing

EXHIBIT-A)

imp,ortant ' i s ' the

in particular was unoppos ed by both law enforcement, agencies and, ',the: Office of, the
':,obispo~ 'An

Distric~Attorney frol]l
the'

the

Cou5t~
the

of, San

Luis

unlike'

oove rnor ,
Section

the

hearing

,p,anel

relied

,:

" specificaliy: COde of

on

,Penal ,Code

3041 fa) , (b), 2,

'California CCR 2402,'

R~guiations,Titl~' '15Divi~,i:on ,rep~~~e~t
"

specifically

, [Determi!],ati:~n'ofSi.titabil'ity] ~,The' panel found that the prisoner
,

"does, ri(Jt

a

ttireatto himself or others. has

The panel' has his
ab i.Lf, ty'

'specifically, noted 'that .bhe .prLsoner to function' within the 'law upon his

.anhanoad

release.

The "criteria

for

thisdetermiriatibnis

~it~din,the,Title 15

CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGUbATIONS DIVISION 3

Tit1e 15 'CCR 3335. Arl:ic1e '"J. ,AdlIiinistration Segregation ,

(a)'

When,

an

inmate's

'presence' in

an

in~tit.ut.Lcn' s

general

population presents an immediate threat 'to the safety Of 'the inmate ',Or
other~, endallg~rs 'institution
"

.....

'

.:

..

security

or

jeopardizes

che

integritY-of ,an investigation criminalac,tivi ty " , the

of alleged serious
II II ·

misconduct, of

'gen~ral p~pulatiOnan:d be
segregation

the'

inmat~ sh~ll
may be

be ' i~medi'ateiyremove~ .f r-om

placed in administrative segregation. 'accomplished' by confinement

Administrative

, in a :desi$"nated unit; orin an emergency, to any single cell und, t
3.

Case 3:07-cv-03313-MMC
. "or"'.

Document 9-4

Filed 02/11/2008

Page 11 of 22

10
;

(

.

.

",'

.'

.

capable of' providing secures·egregat':ion.: .:. ' . Title 15 CCR 333.6 . (a) The reason for

ordering .an

irimate'~

placeni~nti~ admiriistrative.se·g~egatiori·willbe' clearly documented
.on . a CDC-.1.14-0 (OrdeJ:"' and Hearirigon' Segregation Housing) by the

· official' ordeiringtheaction' at th.etinie· the' action ;i.staken ·
.'

.:"

.

.CCR 3341.5 . segregated l?rograin HQUSiD9:rtnit
'.

.

.

.

(c) Security. Housing unit (SHU).·Ari. . the safety of others .be .housed in a (SHU)." The . guidelines .found
. . .

irimatewho~e conduct 'endange;s

or

the. se~ur:i.tyof the institution "shall"

in .theTitle. 15
.

Division .

, ' . '

Three They

published by the Californ'ia Deparb:)lent of Correction~ (CDC).
",

,.'

· :serveto. clarify' and· give

meaning

to of

an

inmate's. Ln.st.Lxut.Lona L . while' he .,is

expectations . under' ·theDirector incarcerated. The fact .t.ha t . the' Board of

Corrections,

Prison

Terms
.

haa
.

found
.

the

· Pet'itioner suitable for . parole : and the' Review Parre L has 'approv~d the decision to gr~rit parole i's indicative of the relevant factors used

by" the p~riel for detet~iningwhen a prisoner can' safely be
(b) , title : 15 r , Division TWO, Three. (See 2002

· ~~turned '. to ,the conimunf, ty, ":. puxsuanti to the Catifo.rnia. .1?~rial .Code
'. .'

Section 304l(a) ,

hearing' tr.anscript marked'as EXHIBIT-A) . At page 43·of the hearing . . . · transcript, . presiding. Commissioner Jones Moore' gives meaning to . . .' .. the a:~cision to grant parole and appareritly th,e Review Panel has agreed aiong -with law' errf or-cement;
4.

agencies,

and

the

District

Case 3:07-cv-03313-MMC

Document 9-4

Filed 02/11/2008

Page 12 of 22

11
'(

.

.

..

.'

Att~~ney
to . sum
.

for

theC~t:i~tYOf
to

San Luis

Obisp~
the

as . they

h~ve el~cted
notes record, .the no

not to oppose parole for the up ,the' decis.:i.on he' states the

pet:i,ti~nerinthis
paro Ls ,
,

'case . .Just briefly

Commissioner

following,

t'risoner, has, "9-0 ;juvenile lIe has enhanced 'his Among
.
,',

di~ciplinary' while Lnca rcerated,
within the

ability to factors

'commissi~ner,'spedi~iCallY notes
at least 'partiafly more detail

: function

la~l 'upon "release.

other

that .thevicitim, to the'events.

Ruben

contrib~te~

M~ral~s

the

This

is, covered Schmidt Schmidt, 8':"9 Mr.

in

by .thepetitioner's 'at't:ornE~y,,' Mr.

Bill

atP~

36-41 oLthe hearingtrariscript

(se~EXHIBIT-A). Mr~
P.

makes' a 'reference to .the Sentencirig Trariscripts',at P. .and. also thePreliniinary, Hearing
.
'

3"';4,

Transcript' at Ruben Morales
..

151:"152.

Schmidt indicates ,on

that the victim
'"

pulled a . knife Mr'. Molina

petitioner~~1r. Molina.' 'rhe . vi.ctim
:

.

:

,then

pursued

. '

in a vehicle until it became impossible for him to continue the pursuit. 'The record, also .Lndd.ca t.ea t.hat; came, t.o Mr. Molina's. I:l:)sidence. the victim,' Mr. Tony Morales Romero,

A~eyewit.nes s ,

indicated' that Mr. he. wanted . articulated to cut

~1oraleswatlted

to fight. Mr. of, Prison

Molina' and that clearly have wmi'ld' .

him .. The out

Board

Terms 'has why

and .'laid

the . particular

z easons

they

deterfl~in~dtb.atthe pe~itiorier
not represent a ,the fact that .he was

in this case is suitable

and

threattosod~ty

if
,

~eleasedfrom prison,i~clude
'

in, fact 'attempting

tciprotect .himself at in particular, has compared' to ',other

the time of the offe'nseand that his not reached
,

offense when

the

level

.

of. egregiousness

similar'

off~nses of: second degree murder.
5.

Case 3:07-cv-03313-MMC

Document 9-4

Filed 02/11/2008

Page 13 of 22

....

/

i

' ..I I I STATEMEN'T OF FACTS, CONTINUED
'.1

.J

I

i:'

On' ,~ebruary

21,

2003,', Governor Code

Gray
.

Davis

acting ~ on ' ,his the, The .'

a~thO~it~pu'rsuant toi?~n'C11
decision, of .the Board

,secti~n'

304L2
':

~~s ~eversed
of vpaz-oLe ,

,at

,prison' Terms

to ,._grant

Governor has mailed a copy
, "
'

of'
'

h Ls decision, to review' .arid 'reverse
.

.

.
,

:Section, 304 L 2., ,The 'Peti t.ione,r has . marked this . '

.

letter

from 'the, copy for'

'Office, of the' 'Governor as EXHIBIT-a 'and has provided. a
t'.
'; ~

,the cour t , In of· the'

"

.

the~ovei~or',s ,review Board. of P~:i.son ';r'er~s,
Molina 'would
,

he asserts contrary',to the findings 'he 'states: However,', "In my view",

, these ,fa~cirable factors' are outweighed. by ,the factors ·that show that Mr.
.

pose
,

an

unreasonable, risk (Quoting

of 'danger From

to

.,..

'.'

society

if' relea,sed

at

this "time.

verbatim

Page

. - '

'f.

,.

3, Las t par-aqzaph of the Gov~~nori sletter) ;' [See EX:iUIUT-B] . ,The Governor acknowledges 'th~t "petitio~er, Mr. Molina was

indeedthreateried bY-the victim Mr. 'Morales with a. knife. He also' . goes' on to, state ,that Mr. his offense ,and

Moiinaha~-:

servedelghteen for his

yeats

for for,

has ,d~monstr'ated remorse

o'ffense,

the pain he has caused the, familyofMr . Morales. the Governor
, "

Additionally,

addsthat',the,'vic~im Mr.
, ,

Moraies was shot 15-18 times
.

and that it was Mr.,
'"

-".

M6Iinawhothreate~ed:Mr. Mor~l~s.The Governor
Molina ' remorse,completely'and' contradictious made.
6.,

changes his "demonstrates of' the

statemel',ltand now claims 'that petitionerMr . a 'lack 'of

statements

he' already

The

Governor

findings

are

'":\

'

Case 3:07-cv-03313-MMC

Document 9-4

Filed 02/11/2008

Page 14 of 22

13
,t

inconsisterit with ,the' record of Prison Terms. Governor I s There to is, 'nothing 'in rev,erse, without. the

.'

.

and thefinditlgs with

of 'the Board

record' tc:isupport,the

'decis'ion

nothing but 'his personal' v;i.e";s.

H~sdecision' is

'entirely

foundatio~ 'and

lacks

the>, "some

evidence" cited (In

re

Powel1 45 Cal.' 3d 894).

,IV CORTEl!lTIONS
,
"

1. petit~oner, Mr. Moliha has a liberty interest iIi parole~
.
.
"

..

2 . ,The Governor's decisioI;"td reverse a supported"
,

grant of, parole

is

not and,

by, the

evidence
'
,

'and

is

therefore,

aib1. trary

capricious;

violating Petiton~r' s

right to due process "under the'

State and Federa~ Constitutions. 3.' The'; decision by parole must be for the Governor' to rever!:le Mr. "good cause" as Molina grant of 15

defined "in, CCRTitle

,2000(b) (49).

40. Article
discretiotl

V

sections

(b)

does' not grant
"

a

Governor

ilnfettered requires

over

parole 'matters,

but

rather' explicitly

pa.co Le : decd s Lons to be based upon' the same factors that the Board 'of P;r'ison ,Terms' is required to cons Ldez ;' Proposition 89,
8 Sub. (b)

Section

en
and

its

face
review

because the
with

,.., .............. ~ ..... ...:....:J....,v'C.L..&..Lv ....

has

no

guidelir1es

~rite~ia: for
is

individualized a copy of

',consideration. ,The

Petitioner

entitled

to receive

the same materials provided'to,the Governor by the parole authority 'in
..

order
'

to

challenge

this

additional

level

of' review

imposed

'"upon pri'soIiers by Proposition 89 [{action '8, sub. (b).
7.

Case 3:07-cv-03313-MMC

Document 9-4

Filed 02/11/2008

Page 15 of 22

14
i-.,

, "

.....

,

IV ,MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTBORI'l'Y,

,PetitiQner .has. a'iiberty 'interest '"in : and of parole .. BO-B1' '114
.

an

expectation

ci~irig '~re, R.amiXez;
,"

( I~

~eRosenkrcintz 'III,

Supra"

11 6 Cal.

Rptr.' 2d 69, 564":'568,
"

,Supra 94 Cal. Greenho1tz v ,

.

,~pp.

'4th 549,
,

Cktl.Rptr.:2d' .at; 397;

Nebraska Pen.a1Inmates'

(1979)'44~ u.s,
369, ;,"
.

1; 12; Board of Pardons vA11eri (19B7) ,482 u.a, Conner (1975) ,51500,,8.'

371-379;' saria.:Lnv. in
."

472)'~

'In

that

'liber~y' interest '.

p~r~le;, P~tit.i6ne~ .
inmat~

has an" expectation' to have
'".
",

his term proportionally fixed .with a "balance between, tlie grav~ty . ... . . ., ' o f 'the' offeO:se r thetirrie the , ,prescribed .\:;ly, law
.:

has

served~ 'and

the'sentence Rainirez,

for 'the

commitment offense',"

(,In're

Supra, ',114' CAL Rptr. 2d at 396) ~
",

California state' law pro,vides' a a

prisoner with

a, right

to

'fai~pa~ole
.....

hearing' including

,alllevel~ Ofre~iew. ,The
and' meet at" least
.

process

of review

should be 'without bias
.".:.'.

the minimum',

'du~
to

process required py :Statute. (See 'for example, Peop1e v,Ranrl.rez
-,'

-.

:,

",

...: .

. '. . .

"'

(1979),

25 Cal.

3d

260)~

holding action, fair

"when an he

individual' is

subject proces,i:?

depzLvat.ory govermental

always has ,a due

liberty and

':inte~e~t' both
treat,ed

Ln

and 'unpr-ej ud LcLa l,' decision making and dignity. The californi,a United

being

with

respect

co'nstitution, A:rUcle 1 an:d17'.and the 14th
,
'
'

Amendm~nttothe
proces~
the of be

'Sta:tes "Constitution guarantees, a, 'person will not be deprived of his

l~be~ty
due

without process

the

p~ote~tion
a

of

due

the based

law. on

Minimu~,

requires

parole'

decision

verified

facts

and.vaccur-at.e. 'knowledge' of

record '(Morrisey

8.

Case 3:07-cv-03313-MMC

Document 9-4
,.

Filed 02/11/2008

Page 16 of 22

15·.

::','

.

.

v Brewer (1971 ) 408 U~S. ,47,434) .. Recently the . Cal!fornia Supreme Court set . the standard for the Governor' sreview for Code
.'

indeter~inat~ inmates
.
,"

pursuant. to Penal
'.
. '

Section
' -

3041~2 . '

, ..

:.

.

(2002)WL.

31802385'

(CaL); '29 Cal,

4th 616]

~ An.in.·~noth~; r~cent case; . the United

states. couz t. of Appeals outlined. the

sta~dard

for 'review for . '-. the .. .

Board .of Prison 'T~rms' (See Me Quillian v Dunean'(2002) .bJDAR 11 i 53 9th Cir. (2002) 30·GP.

se.
it clear.

.

.'

..

'.
i

The Mc Quillian. court made under'

The court -he Ld t.hat; parole

c1early 'established 'S~preme court

pf~ceden·t, 'the

scheme. in date .Ln

california/:u~de~ whichMc
.

.Quillian 'was"given his pazo Le
' "

1979. gives. rise to .constitut'ionally prot~cted liberty . . a .. .

interest.· The process that Ls due .of such an interest

befo~e

a prisoner can be deprived 'there is "some evidence"

is

'a sho'wing that

in' the record to .,support: a later rescission of' that date. ':Because the boaz-dts than a

grourids~' for it~

laterrescissiori' refiectnothing more ultimate I determination reached-by

disagreement with

the

the earlier grantihg panel,'.the"somEl ,evidence'" standard has not; been met. AC:c~ra:ing1Y.wereversed. [Mc Quillionat P.11154] California law presumes that each

piece of, evidence prE!sented to the granting pe.ne L was' considered
by it.

[See.Inre· Caswell,' 97

Cal. App.

4th 1017,

1031

(Cal.

ct. two

App.

2002)].

The noted "a procedural due

process . claim has

distinct e Lement.s e .1> ·a deprivation of liberty of property interest.

a

constitutionally 'protected a· denial of 'adequate

and,. 2)

procEldural protections.

(Brewster v ,
,9·.

Board of Edue.

of Lynwood

Case 3:07-cv-03313-MMC
"',"

Document 9-4

Filed 02/11/2008

Page 17 of 22

16

,

,:,'

"

.

'

...
971, 982 (9th'Cir. 198~)We th~refore~ the

UItifedS~h~ ni$t.149 F~ 3d
hold, that Supreme, Court prisonelislike of ,the

"clearlyestablish~d'flderal law as' determiried by

United

states II
'."

provides
'.,
"

that ,Cali'fornla interest

Mc' Quillionhave

a

coqnf.z ah Le : ~iberty

in release on ',I?arole.TheGovernor in', this case must' sttpport' his , deci~ion.' 'to 'reverse the decision of
.i

the Board .of ,Prison must 'for

Terms

wi tho, something 'm,ore -than, ,evidetlce" 'and,',c:learly 'and 'itmust'be

rn

my' view. II 'He "good

present" "acme his decision

establish

cauae"

support~d by ,the

record

~Si~g

the material forwarded

to 'him by ,the board. ' The: Gov:ernorwhen ,reviewing ,grants of parole is being held,

co the same regulations and giiid~lines as the board'
,
"

.
'

,'

. '

(Johnson v

,.
I

,Gomez, Supra,

92F'. 3d at 967 ;:rn' that

re, Arafi1es", Supra,
the .aame

6 Cal.' App.

4th

at

1477),

would" include

regUlations 'and

guidelines. 'Moreover,
. .

the

weight of'

evf.dence. for ,even

a

disciplinary

proceed:lngto find guilt mU:stbe by '~J!lrepOnderance of,the evidence
, ' ,

[15 tCR 3320(1)].

It only stands to reason that,if a disciplinary
proved by a preponderance
"

violat;i:on 'must

be

of

evidence,' then'"
"

parole' decision t.hat; .Ls tantamount, to a' sentencing decision must also "be' by a preponderance of the evidence,; anything less' would di sagreeswith "

. lead to absur-d consequences. 'The

Gove~rior' merely

the granting 'panel and, presents, his view of the 'case but submits, no' evidence, to sup'po'rt'his v'iew~,

,, [M:~ . Quillian
panei may not

at P.

1':' 56]

The court rioted, baaed on its

the own

rescission differing

find

"good

cause" 10.

"

.'

Case 3:07-cv-03313-MMC

Document 9-4

Filed 02/11/2008

Page 18 of 22

"

-.;

i
th~roughiy considered at, the time
rescission that
,

,
"

,
;

as s es sment.vof

facts that ,were,

,

.;.'

'of ,tqe'grant.

inay~ot' be '~~held

,IIi 'cas~eli',

the Caswell court 's'tressed that "a'"
,

mereiy:' because the board 'has mouth words

',have held' constitute' I calise ,~ 'for, rescission. an, ad;;quat~' factual

There ,must also be,

undeorpd.nnLnq

for

the

board is 'determination

, ,of cause , 92 CaL ~pp. 4th at 1027. ~lhen the basis for rescission
.

[is) not 'new evidende,but a, purportedly Lnadequat;e consideration
,,'.

'.

.

"Of e;idence by thegran'ti'ng board, ,Id" at1 028, the Caswell cour t; . held,
.
.

the

grounds,' 'for' rescission must reflect' 'more than the ultimate 'determinatiC;;n reached

a

mere the

. ;.
~

,j

disagreement 'with

by

!

,[ltgranting panaL"}, Under Article.y Section 8 (b)",and Penal, Code
i

Section 3041".2 the Governor is subject 'court
,

to. the' same standards the
therefore
.

held
,

in' Mc Quillion
'

and. C'asw~lLThe Governor like
·

c~n~ot
";

"'simply" mouth' 'words, 'he 'must
· I '
.:

in Caswell
. '

demonstrate

that his' decision to . ...
'

:te;er~e, the'board "s decision to grant parol~
was a 'preponderance ,factual of evidence and an his

"to the 'Petitioner ,was mOre than' just ':his .per sona L view." He must demonstrate actual and, tha..t there

factual

adequate

underpinning ,for

determination and not just merely panel'; [Caswell 92 CAl <, App. a
,

a

disagreement 'with the granting>'

4th at 1029]

the court held that on the

in

review,
'

of

a

rescission' of

parole ,based focus

inadequate finding,

consideration o£ evidence,

lithe .properr

is

on the

.and conclusions' that were central to the original panel's .uLtri.mat.e decision to grant parole. It Id,
,11.

only,

when

the'S'e

findings

or

l,

Case 3:07-cv-03313-MMC

Document 9-4

Filed 02/11/2008

Page 19 of 22

conclusions 'granting

cap.notbe

reconciled the

with

the

evidence

before ·the or the

panel', .cirwhen

granting

panel 'misstates .facts germane to

explici.tly

decnn~'

to

consider

information there' exist .

[parti<;:ular au.itiabL litrfactcir]
of parie L I s
.

will

faiiuret~adeq1iately
.

i'SaIne' ~via.enceIi .... thereby' grounds

consider. the EnTidence,

justify"ing rescission
.

of the parole .release ..date. on. the
.

. : ..

fundamental .·errors ·.ocG)lrred, gran:ting of parole
date~

resulting. in. the·improvident.

Ed,':. ..-

.

In order . for . the

Governor

to

cause"

and

justify his decision in the C::ase of the.pe:tH.io~i=r he vmus t; follow the (b ) est,ablished of. guide:J.ines in
.. .

Article
.

V,

Sect.:Lon provides:

8

Subdivision No
"
,"

the CaliforniaCon~titutioh which
.
.'
" . .

decision

Of the parole authority of this 'state with . : . respect ·tothe g'rantiIlg, .,
" ; "

d~nial, .:revoc~ti~~. or
" to an :indeterininate

. suspension of parole' of a

t:e~m uponconv~ctiC:in' of
to'

.pers~n.

sent.enced

murder, sha·ll

b~ccime'

,effective for a period of. 30 . days, ·'· ..

during, which the' 'Governor }'l!ay sta·tute.

reviewt~edecisionnSUbj ect
~.

pr'bc~dures"provided'by

The Go;ernor may qrtlya:ffirm:, . .
.
. '

modify or reverse .

the decision of

the parole authority on the 'basis of the . same factors ·which parole' arithority:is required 'to consider. Penal .code Section 3.041 ·.2 Subdivision (a) provideS in part: TheGClVernOr when reviewing the parole .authorities
V
.

decision of the

p~rsu~~tto Subdivision' (b I of ·Section 8 of Article.
'"

: Constitution,. "-shall"" :revie',Ymaterials' provided: by . authority. california code

the

parole

of . regulations
12.

title 15 Division 2 CCR 2000

"' ..'

Case 3:07-cv-03313-MMC

Document 9-4

Filed 02/11/2008

Page 20 of 22

19
.·r
. ....
:

. .. . .

.has established that· there m~st b e
· decd s Lons

:lI g o o d

caJise". :for all subst.arrt Lve [a] finding by ·the board

and

define

"goqd· cause"as

'.: based upon. a

pre~onde~~nce . ~f·. tha· eVide6.ce thatth~~e is afa~tuai·
[emphasis added· 2,
CCR

. basis. and goodr~ason>fo:r the decision- made · CCR.2000 (b) provides that (49) good cauae l ,
.

15
or

Title15,Divisio~
the: hearing . . shali'
.

2254

the .recordaf

.

. .

include the

incorporatebyref~rel~¢~ 'the· [elvidence considered,
· relied upon , .arid the findings
.
. .

.

evidence

c;£

t.he

hearingp~nel .Withsupporti~g
~ie~
.

siJ.pportin-the record to

establi~h
.
,".

his.

tha·tPetitianerwould

be a danqer .to society.· There is . no . indication· that the G.overrior relied ·u(;lon any· pazt; of· the reco·rd or

appli~d"

the same· criteria personal

·as the granting . paneL in· t.he review process except his

view which does not constitute f~l.Cts : Findings made by the Governor do not in and of
th.emselve·slega~ly. constitute. the

necessary legally mus c. must

evidence, made.

on which
,

a
,.

decision to. reverse· parole
Supra,

can roe

(See Rosenkrantz, to

p.p ·426-427). Also,

The

GOy.ernor

provide' facts

support his

dE?cision.

the Governor

weigh the gravity. of ·the Petitionex:' s one"nse against the gravity of other offenses of 't he same class, .term· tqwhich the .eligible for Petitioner was since July and take into accou·ntthe

sentenced .. Petitioner has been 31, 1994. (See

parole

Ramirez,

Supra,

. ·94 Cai; App. 4th at P. 570) ·.

/ /
/.
13.

Case 3:07-cv-03313-MMC

Document 9-4

Filed 02/11/2008

Page 21 of 22

20

V ,'CONCLUSION

"

Thi,legisiatur~, has " de9reeq that unless' the
possess a 'threat

release of public

a

Pris~nerCOIWicte~ o f 'murder

suc~

a: personS110u'id
.

not

b~ ;:paroled~
the record

~~.

safety,' no

In this case, there was

",

'.

ovezwhe l.mt.nq

.ev.i,dencein

clearly' 'demonstrates

that

the'Petitioner has' served the 'appropriate amount of. time to satisfy the punishment regulatiol1.sof Penal code

forhisoffen~eof murder sec~nd
.
:
,"

providE?d in the

th~' California Cod~ of :Regulations' TiUe 15" and
. (a), (b)'.

Sec·tion· 304,1

Prison

officials C\anger'to
.

have

never or

considered' the 'PeUU6ner others in his
ent.Lr-e

to' represent, a
.

himself

time .of

incarce~at{~~.·The
'

(3overnor the

has
law

reversed

Petitioner's ·gran·t..of

parole

in violation" of

as set forth I~ re Ramirez, ·re Rosenkrantz III, Supra, being contrary 'to the facts.

Supra,

94 Cal.' App.

4th '.' 549 and In

95' Cal.

l\pP. ,4th 549, and the dec Ls Lon
'.

,

VI PRAYER FOR RELIEF,

1. 'The

appropriate ieliefis to direct .the Governor to

issue a

decision,
paneL;

within

(10)

days approving the decision of the granting

. '. 2. Grant Petitioner l:1ab,ea~·petiti·on.,
.

.

,

3. Appoint counsel for Petitioner. 4. Issue Oider·to Show ·Cause.

Case 3:07-cv-03313-MMC

Document 9-4

Filed 02/11/2008

Page 22 of 22

',

~'

..

.5. Ai:iqa~y. other ~elief this' court deems appropriate.
, ,..

.VII VERI?ICATION

:,

. I am
'.

the Petitioner in. this .vac t Lon ,' All' facts· in not.' otherwise' suppoz-t ed
by c Lt.at.Lon ' t.o

document)·
. exh Lb i.t.s ,

the

record,

6roth~rdocum~nts~re
of

:true of my own that. the

pers6nal~mo\qledge.
foregoing is true

Ideclar~ u~der' penalty
.
.'

perjury

and carted .. ;;'nd that this ,declaration. was executed TrainlngFacility'(CTF), So Ladad ,

atCbrrectional.

Calif~rnia:.

Date:

Dr~O~-03

.

.

~;;.~
Pro Sa
,.t·.

,.OnnJ:...
,

.

15.