In re Jackson
123 Cal. Rptr. 3d 486
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- 1983: Jackson convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 17 years to life; his current parole history included December 3, 2008, parole denial.
- Board denied parole based on its assessment of unsuitability and danger to public safety at the December 3, 2008 hearing.
- California Supreme Court ordered respondent to show cause why the denial did not violate Penal Code § 5011(b) and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2236 by relying on Jackson’s refusal to admit guilt.
- Petitions for writs of habeas corpus were filed in superior court, this court, and California Supreme Court; relief ultimately granted on the grounds of lack of current dangerousness and statutory violation.
- Court held there was no evidence Jackson posed a current risk; the Board violated § 5011(b) and § 2236 by conditioning on admission of guilt and remanded for new proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was some evidence Jackson posed a current risk. | Jackson argued no current threat; suitable factors outweighed risk. | Board found he remained dangerous based on various factors and lack of remorse/insight. | Board erred; no evidence of current threat; grant petition. |
| Whether the Board relied on Jackson’s refusal to admit guilt in violation of §5011(b) and §2236. | Prohibits conditioning release on admission of guilt; lack of insight/remorse cannot substitute for admission. | Board’s concerns about insight/remorse were legitimate and not solely based on admission. | Violation; Board cannot base unsuitability on admission/refusal; remand for new evaluation. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Aguilar, 168 Cal.App.4th 1479 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2008) (parole release guidelines and suitability factors)
- In re Lawrence, 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 167; 44 Cal.4th 1181 (Cal. 2008) (some evidence standard for current dangerousness; factors interrelation)
- In re Palermo, 171 Cal.App.4th 1096 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2009) (no admission requirement where lack of remorse/insight used improperly)
- In re McDonald, 189 Cal.App.4th 1008 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2010) (cannot rely on denial of guilt to infer lack of insight; statutory prohibition)
- In re Shaputis, 44 Cal.4th 1241 (Cal. 2008) (insight and responsibility as factors; issues of current danger)