In re Gomez
118 Cal. Rptr. 3d 900
Cal. Ct. App.2010Background
- Petitioner was convicted of second degree murder in 1990 and sentenced to 15 years to life; Board found him suitable for parole in 2008 and 2009; Governor reversed both Board findings in 2009 and 2010 on two grounds: heinousness of the offense and lack of full insight due to evolving versions of events; petitioner sought habeas corpus relief; court holds Governor’s reversals violated due process and reinstates Board’s parole findings; proper remedy is reinstatement rather than remand; Chaudhary/Lee line of discharge rules discussed; Court notes immutable factors cannot alone justify current dangerousness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Governor’s reversals relied on immutable factors without nexus to current danger. | Petitioner; Governor relied on offense type and outdated versions. | Governor; factors show current risk. | Reversals lacking rational nexus; violation of due process. |
| Whether the offense’s heinousness alone supports denial of parole. | Lawrence/Weider require individualization; offense alone insufficient. | Governor emphasized heinousness. | Offense alone does not sustain denial; no current dangerousness shown. |
| Whether lack of insight (due to changing versions) is an immutable factor that precludes parole. | Changed statements reflect growth and remorse. | Lack of insight remains a basis to deny parole. | Cannot treat lack of insight as immutable; reflects rehabilitation. |
| Proper remedy for Governor's reversal of Board’s parole grant. | Court should reinstate Board’s grant. | Remand to Governor for further proceedings. | Vacate Governor’s reversal and reinstate Board’s parole grant. |
| Whether petitioner gets credit against parole discharge for time after Governor's reversal but before relief. | Appears to deserve early discharge credit. | Chaudhary controls; no such credit. | No credit against five-year discharge requirement. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Rosenkrantz, 29 Cal.4th 616 (Cal. 2003) (some evidence standard for parole decisions; de novo review limited to relevant factors)
- In re Lawrence, 44 Cal.4th 1181 (Cal. 2005) (individualized assessment; aggravation cannot solely deny parole)
- In re Shaputis, 44 Cal.4th 1241 (Cal. 2008) (current dangerousness requires more than offense gravity alone)
- In re Moses, 182 Cal.App.4th 1279 (Cal. 2010) (remedies for improper Governor reversals of Board decisions)
- In re Vasquez, 170 Cal.App.4th 370 (Cal. 2009) (Board’s and Governor’s review standards; due process)
- In re Scott, 133 Cal.App.4th 573 (Cal. 2005) (limits of ‘some evidence’ review; cannot rely solely on crime severity)
- In re Chaudhary, 172 Cal.App.4th 32 (Cal. 2009) (parole discharge credits and five-year rule; time spent before release does not count)