San Quentin News

Written By Incarcerated - Advancing Social Justice

California Supreme Court Rules on Marsy’s Law

by

The California Supreme Court has upheld the voter-approved initiative called Marsy’s Law, which increased the deferral period between parole hearings to a maximum of 15 years.
The court on March 4 rejected a challenge brought by Michael Vicks, a prisoner serving a life term with the possibility of parole, and upheld the law as written. Vicks claimed the law violated the ex-post facto clauses of the state and federal constitutions because it retroactively increased the punishment for his crime.

Ruling

The Supreme Court determined that Marsy’s Law does not violate the ex-post facto clause and does not create a significant risk of prolonging incarceration, even though the minimum period between subsequent parole hearings was increased from one year to three years, and a maximum of 15 years. However, the law made provisions for an inmate to make a written request to have an earlier hearing at any time following the denial of parole at a regularly scheduled hearing.

Board hearings

If the board grants an earlier hearing and the inmate is again denied parole, the inmate must wait three years before submitting another written request.
When Vicks was convicted of his crimes in 1983, the parole board could defer parole for one, two or three years. In 1994, the maximum increased to five years for prisoners convicted of murder.
Marsy’s Law was approved by voters in 2008. Under Marsy’s Law, the board also has discretion to deny parole for five, seven or 10 years.
The case is In re Michael D. Vicks on Habeas Corpus, Case No. S194129
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_9,_Marsy%27s_Law_Crime_Victims_Rights_Amendment_(2008)

Facial recognition technology poses privacy issues

New Advocate Group Targets Parole Board

One member of Black liberation group paroles

U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Mandatory LWOP for Juveniles

by

The nation’s high court said a juvenile who commits murder could not be automatically sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
The Supreme Court held 5-4, in Miller v. Alabama, “that mandatory life without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes violates the Eight Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments.”
The court affirmed that children are “constitutionally different from adults for purposes of sentencing.”
Children have less culpability and greater prospects for rehabilitation and therefore are less deserving of the most severe punishment. The majority’s decision was based “not only on common sense” but on science and social science.
The court, in a 5-4 decision, invalidated the sentences of two men who had committed murder at the age of 14 and were sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
In each case, state law mandated a sentence of life without the possibility of parole.
The sentencing courts could not consider the youth of the offenders or the nature of the crime.
In 2005, the Supreme Court held in Roper v. Simmons that it was unconstitutional to sentence juveniles to death.
In 2012, the court ruled in Graham v. Florida that juveniles, who do not commit murder, could not be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. The court considered a juvenile’s “lessened culpability” compared to an adult who commits a similar crime and greater “capacity for change.” The court said the punishment of life without the possibility of parole was compared to the death penalty.
The Miller ruling said for a court to impose the death penalty, it must consider the characteristics of a defendant and the details of the crime. Similarly, before imposing a sentence of life without the possibility of parole on a child, a court must consider the child’s age and role in the crime.
The court relied on psychological and scientific studies used in the Graham decision, showing the difference between juvenile and adult minds, particularly in behavior control. The court also noted the susceptibility and vulnerability of children to criminal behavior by their peers.
The decision reiterated the reasoning used in Graham that “youth matters in determining the appropriateness of a lifetime of incarceration without the possibility of parole.”
The court’s decision requires that a juvenile receive individualized consideration when sentenced for murder.
The cases cited for this article are: Miller v. Alabama (No. 10-9646, June 25, 2012), Roper v. Simmons (543 U.S. 551), and Graham v. Florida (560 U.S.___).

Right to Assistance in Plea Deals

by

The U.S. Supreme Court says criminal defendants have a right to effective legal assistance during plea negotiations, and a lawyer must inform the client of any favorable deals the prosecution offers.
A defendant who rejects a plea bargain based on incorrect legal advice by a lawyer has been denied the right to effective assistance of counsel, the court ruled.
The court issued two decisions (Missouri v. Frye and Lafler v. Cooper) where ineffective assistance of counsel caused rejection of a plea offer and led to conviction with a greater punishment.
In Frye, defense counsel failed to inform the defendant of the plea offer. After the offer expired, the defendant still plead guilty but received a more severe sentence.
In Cooper, the attorney communicated the plea offer to the defendant but gave him incorrect legal advice that resulted in rejection of the plea. The defendant went to trial and was found guilty. He received a punishment that was greater than the one offered through the plea.
A defendant must show that had he not received ineffective legal advice, there is a reasonable probability that he would have accepted the plea; the court would have accepted its terms; and the conviction or sentence or both would have been less severe.
The Supreme Court said that the remedy in circumstances like these is to order the state to re-offer the plea agreement.

Court to Rule on Juvenile LWOP

by

The US Supreme Court is mulling over the constitutionality of sentencing a juvenile to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP). In March, the Court heard arguments in two separate cases in which 14-year old offenders were sentenced to LWOP. They are expected to rule on the cases, Miller v Alabama and Jackson v Hobbs, this summer.
The United States is the only country in the world that sentences juvenile murderers to LWOP, according to Amnesty International. Today there are over 2,300 juveniles serving LWOP sentences in the United States.
“It is an absolute tragedy when a person’s life is taken by another human being,” said Borey Ai, who was sentenced to a life term with the possibility of parole for a second-degree murder he committed at age 14. “But condemning children to life in prison is not the only solution.” Ai is vice chairman of Kid CAT, a group at San Quentin whose goals include educating incarcerated men and mentoring juveniles.
Bryan Stevenson, the lawyer representing the 14-year-olds, argued that juveniles have deficits in understanding and judgment, rendering them less culpable for their actions and thus less deserving of harsh punishments. Further, because the character of juveniles is not fully formed, they should have a chance at parole after they mature and rehabilitate.
Stevenson’s argument was bolstered by briefs submitted by the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association which contended juveniles are particularly vulnerable and lack control over their environment.
Amnesty International filed an amicus brief asserting that international standards on punishment of juveniles must shape the court’s view on contemporary standards of decency in determining whether a sentence is cruel and unusual.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child bars sentencing juveniles to LWOP, an agreement that has been ratified by every country except Somalia and the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court has previously ruled that it was unconstitutional to sentence juveniles to death or to LWOP for a non-homicide crime.
Michael Nelson, chairman of Kid CAT, thinks any adult sentence is wrong for a juvenile. “Juveniles who commit crimes, including murder, are as guilty in inflicting pain and suffering on their victims as an adult who commits the same crime,” said Michael Nelson, who was sentenced to a life term with the possibility of parole for a first-degree murder he committed at age 15. “However, they should not be tried as adults or sentenced according to laws that apply to adults, because that further devalues human life and ignores the profound redemptive capacity of young offenders.”

U.S. Supreme Court To Hear Race Case

by

The subject of race and admissions policy for state universities is once again before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Abigail Fisher, a Texas resident, is challenging the admission policy of the University of Texas after she was denied undergraduate admission.
The University of Texas molded its admissions system after a 2003 Supreme Court case, ruling that universities may “narrowly tailor [the} use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.” The case, Grutter v. Bollinger, also determined that any race-conscious measures must be limited in time.
In previous decisions, the Supreme Court recognized that a diverse student body serves educational objectives by providing increased perspectives in the classroom and prepares students in their professions.
Fisher is asking the Supreme Court to reconsider or overrule Grutter. However, she has not argued that the state university does not have a compelling interest in assembling a racially diverse student body. Proponents of affirmative action say that they are apprehensive that the Supreme Court will use this case to ban affirmative action.

Court Defines Evidence Standard for Lifer Parole

by

A new California Supreme Court decision clarifies the scope and proper application of the “some evidence” standard used by courts to review parole suitability determination.
The Supreme Court reversed a decision by the 4th District Court of Appeal that found the Board of Parole Hearings had improperly denied parole to Richard Shaputis at a 2009 parole hearing.
The Supreme Court’s decision also offered guidelines to appellate courts reviewing a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging board denials of suitability, or parole reversals by the governor.
The Supreme Court affirmed that “the paramount consideration for both the board and the governor…is whether the inmate currently poses a threat to public safety.”
The decision made clear that reviewing courts may overturn a decision by the board or governor when the evidence only leads to a conclusion that the inmate no longer presents a risk to public safety.
The Supreme Court found that the board’s decision denying parole to Shaputis was based on a long history of domestic violence, and his inadequate insight as well as his failure to accept responsibility for his crime.
The Dec. 29, 2011 decision is In re Richard Shaputis on Habeas Corpus, Case No S188655.

Court Rules Parole Can’t Be Denied Solely Based on Past

by

The parole board or the governor cannot deny parole based primarily on a prisoner’s past, a California appeals court has ruled.
The 6th District Court of Appeal held that it was inappropriate for the governor to reverse a parole decision for Johnny Lira in 2008 based upon 1980 factors. They were cited by the prison psychologist and used by the governor to reverse the parole board’s decision to grant him parole.
The court ruled that in light of the age of the historical factors and Lira’s “lengthy and undisputed record of rehabilitative behavior,” these factors show that Lira no longer poses an unreasonable risk of danger to the public.
The court also ruled that Lira was entitled to credit toward his parole period for the time he spent in prison following the governor’s erroneous reversal of his parole grant.
The case is In re Johnny Lira on Habeas Corpus, cite as DJDAR 17446, No. HO36162.

Confidential Files Used to Deny Parole

by

The California Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District ruled that confidential information used by former Governor Schwarzenegger does need not be revealed to the inmate whose parole date was reversed. (Ochoa v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County Brice Glasgow, Real Party in Interest, 2011 DJDAR 15293).
The governor reversed the parole date of Brice Glasgow, serving a term of 30 years to life for a first-degree murder, based in part on confidential material indicating that Glasgow was suspected of “selling his prescribed cancer pain reliever or doing something inappropriate with it” in 2008.
Glasgow challenged the governor’s decision reversing his parole grant in a petition filed in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County. The Superior Court gave the warden a choice between producing an unedited copy of the confidential information and providing it to Glasgow, or opposing Glasgow’s petition challenging the parole reversal without relying on the confidential material.
The warden then challenged the Superior Court’s order in the Court of Appeal claiming that disclosure of the confidential information would endanger the safety and security of the informants and the institution.
The Court of Appeal balanced Glasgow’s interest in being able to challenge the accuracy of the confidential information against the state’s interest in not disclosing information that will harm an informant. The Court decided to hold an in camera or closed hearing in then judge’s chambers for the purpose of providing Glasgow’s attorney with as much of the confidential information that could be revealed without disclosing the identities of the informants.
The governor’s decision to reverse Glasgow’s parole date also relied on other factors including the crime, lack of responsibility, as well as negative conduct in prison and his substantial criminal history.

Court Rejects Self-Defense Claim

by

A prisoner who is called a “bitch” by another inmate is not justified in using force in self-defense. The Federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that being called a “bitch” in the “harsh environment” of prison may create a risk, but it does not justify the use of force, or “a surprise, pre-emptive attack using deadly force.”
In denying Lenny Urena’s appeal of a conviction for stabbing an inmate who had called him a “bitch,” the Court of Appeal ruled that he was not entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense. The Court, in U.S. v. Urena (No. 09-50285), stated, “When a person receives harsh words from another, insulting words, demeaning words, or even fighting words, there is no privilege to assault the speaker with deadly force.”
 

Court to Rule on Jerusalem Born Citizens

by

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether babies born in Jerusalem to parents who are U.S. citizens may have their birth certificates and passports list ‘Israel’ as their birthplace. The current policy is to list the place of birth as “Jerusalem” and not list Israel.
The policy of the United States has been not to recognize the sovereignty of any part of Jerusalem because of claims by both Israel and Palestinians to the city. Israel gained control of West Jerusalem in 1948 and of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, in the 1967 War.
The government’s position is that by recording the birthplace of American babies born in Jerusalem as “Israel” it will challenge long-standing U.S. foreign policy concerning the recognition of sovereignty over Jerusalem. The State Department’s argument to the Court is that any action seen as altering U.S. policy toward Jerusalem could affect its role as a mediator in negotiations to resolve the Israeli-Arab conflict.
The parents of the child born in Jerusalem maintain that Congress has passed a law allowing birth certificates and passports of U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem to record “Israel” as their place of birth. The State Department argues that only the President, not Congress, has the power to recognize the sovereignty of any foreign area.
The parents cite the precedent of U.S. citizens born in Taiwan. Although the U.S. recognizes the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China, it allows American passports to show Taiwan as the place of birth despite China’s opposition to this policy.
In a ten-year period there were over 52,000 passports issued that listed Jerusalem as the place of birth.
The case is Zivotofsky v. Clinton and was argued before the Supreme Court in November.

Translate »