In re Hunter
141 Cal. Rptr. 3d 350
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Hunter murdered Tanya Hamlin and her fetus in 1984; life sentence with enhancements, parole eligibility 2004; Board denied parole in 2009 and set 7-year hearing; petition challenged Board’s denial under Shaputis II deferential review; record shows extensive substance abuse history and post-offense rehabilitation; Board relied on lack of spontaneous remorse and on a 2008 disciplinary incident but offered no rational nexus to current dangerousness; court remands for new parole hearing in light of this opinion.
- Court applied Shaputis II deferential standard; Sufficient evidence required a rational nexus between life crime and current risk; no evidence in record shows Hunter will pose unreasonable risk if released; sole problematic factors—offense gravity and perceived lack of credibility—do not alone establish current dangerousness.
- Hunter’s narrative of crime remained consistent and credible; he has engaged in treatment, prevention programs, and obtained vocations; risk assessment scores indicate low risk; lack of current drug use and strong parole plans undermine unsuitability finding; no nexus between 1984 crime and present dangerousness established by the record.
- Board’s reliance on lack of remorse was unsupported by record; recent discipline does not necessarily imply danger; Shaputis II permits reliance on older evidence if newer data is unreliable; remand to conduct new parole hearing consistent with this opinion.
- Disposition: remanded for a prompt subsequent parole hearing in light of this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is any evidence linking the life crime to present danger | Hunter argues no rational nexus. | Board found lack of remorse and credibility; crime connected to present risk. | No rational nexus established. |
| Whether the Board properly credited current evidence of suitability | Hunter's treatment and low-risk assessments show suitability. | Board weighed past offense and credibility as unsuitability factors. | No substantial evidence supporting unsuitability. |
| Timeliness of the petition and applicability of timeliness rules to parole-denial review | Petition timely per parole-denial context. | Timeliness could be an issue in criminal habeas, but not here. | Petition timely; timeliness not controlling. |
| Whether recent discipline can independently support unsuitability | Discipline is not determinative; one incident insufficient. | Recent misconduct can support denial if indicative of danger. | Not sufficient nexus to current dangerousness. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Shaputis, 53 Cal.4th 192 (Cal. 2011) (deferential «some evidence» standard; current dangerousness requires rational nexus)
- In re Lawrence, 44 Cal.4th 1181 (Cal. 2005) (parole normally granted unless unsuitability shown)
- In re Ryner, 196 Cal.App.4th 533 (Cal. App. 2011) (lack of insight must be evidence of current dangerousness)
- In re Palermo, 171 Cal.App.4th 1096 (Cal. App. 2009) (omissions not alone evidence of unsuitability; credibility matters)
- In re Jackson, 193 Cal.App.4th 1376 (Cal. App. 2011) (parole plans with family do not render plans unrealistic)
- In re Prather, 50 Cal.4th 238 (Cal. 2010) (parole suitability analysis; rational nexus to current danger)