In Re McDonald
189 Cal. App. 4th 1008
Cal. Ct. App.2010Background
- McDonald was convicted of second degree murder for Geraldo's death at age 16; the Board twice found him suitable for parole, but the Governor reversed both times based on the commitment offense and lack of insight.
- Cast of accomplices formed the Aces of Spades; trial evidence tied McDonald to the killing, including Stocks' testimony and a guitar-string garrote.
- McDonald presented a timeline defense and asserted rehabilitation, education, and remorse; psychological evaluations showed low risk of future violence.
- In January 2009 the Governor reversed the Board's August 2008 parole grant, citing aggravated offense and lack of insight; subsequent habeas corpus relief granted by trial court.
- The appellate court upheld the habeas grant, reversed the Governor's reversal, reinstated the Board's parole release order, and affirmed that McDonald should remain on parole.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Governor could reverse parole based on lack of insight without condemned admission. | McDonald denies involvement; Penal Code §5011 allows no admission as condition. | Governor may consider lack of insight as predictor of dangerousness. | No, lack of admitted guilt cannot be sole basis for reversal. |
| Whether there was substantial evidence of current dangerousness to uphold reversal. | Record shows rehabilitation and low risk; offense no longer predictive. | Aggravated nature and lack of insight support current risk. | There is no substantial evidence of current dangerousness. |
| Whether remand to the Governor was required under Prather to consider new evidence. | Reversal should trigger remand for full reconsideration. | Remand unnecessary where Governor's reasons were improper. | Remand not required; Court may affirm with Board’s reinstated order. |
| What standard governs review of Governor's reversal of Board parole decision. | Some evidence supports reversal due to current danger. | Standard allows reversal only if some evidence shows current dangerousness. | Deferential yet robust standard; must be some evidence of current danger. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Gaul, 170 Cal. App. 4th 20 (Cal. App. 2009) (parole decision requires current dangerousness focus)
- In re Lawrence, 44 Cal.4th 1181 (Cal. 2008) (core inquiry: current dangerousness after time and rehabilitation)
- In re Rosenkrantz, 29 Cal.4th 616 (Cal. 2002) (guides balancing factors; individualized assessment)
- In re Shaputis, 44 Cal.4th 1241 (Cal. 2008) (lack of insight as evidence only if record supports it)