In re Mims
137 Cal. Rptr. 3d 682
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Mims murdered her fifth husband, Robert Sand, in May 1981, stabbing him and beating him with a board in his wheelchair-bound state.
- Defendant provided multiple, inconsistent accounts of the crime, later alleging abuse and coercive sexual dynamics as motivating factors.
- She was convicted of first-degree murder with a weapon-use enhancement and imprisoned 26 years to life; minimum eligible parole date set for August 22, 1998.
- Board parole hearings considered psychological evaluations; Dr. Barnard opined minimal risk, PTSD-related insights; Dr. Pointkowski found low-to-moderate risk but questioned insight.
- Board denied parole for three years, citing lack of insight, failure to address causative factors, the heinous nature of the offense, and unstable social history; defendant sought habeas relief, which the superior court granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there some evidence supporting lack of insight? | People contend the Board had rational basis for lack of insight. | Mims argues lack of insight is not a statutory factor and evidence was insufficient or misinterpreted. | Yes; some evidence supported lack of insight. |
| Can the egregious nature of the offense justify denial of parole for current dangerousness? | People rely on the offense's cruel nature to justify unsuitability. | Mims argues egregiousness alone cannot determine current danger without linkage to current attitude. | There is some evidence the offense's brutality supported unsuitability. |
| Did the Board properly evaluate changes in Mims's psychological state over time or impermissibly reweigh the evidence? | People argue the Board should consider changes shown by experts and time. | Mims contends the Board inadequately weighed insights and relied on outdated assessments. | The Board's conclusions were supported by the record; the superior court erred by reweighing evidence. |
| Did defendant forfeiture affect consideration of changes in attitude due to refusal to participate in interviews? | People argue lack of interview limits insight into current attitude. | Mims forfeited weight on post-crime attitude by declining to speak, making this factor moot. | Forfeiture applied; the Board could rely on other evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Lawrence, 44 Cal.4th 1181 (Cal. 2008) (governs deferential review of parole determinations related to public safety)
- In re Rosenkrantz, 29 Cal.4th 616 (Cal. 2002) (outline of some-evidence standard for parole decisions)
- In re Shaputis, 44 Cal.4th 1241 (Cal. 2008) (parole review and evidentiary standards for suitability determinations)
- In re Shaputis (Shaputis II), 53 Cal.4th 192 (Cal. 2011) (clarifies evidence-based review and Board discretion)
- In re Prather, 50 Cal.4th 238 (Cal. 2010) ( Board discretion and evidentiary standards in parole decisions)
- In re Fain, 145 Cal.App.3d 540 (Cal. App. 1983) (foundational discussion of Board's statutory authority over parole)
- In re Rozzo, 172 Cal.App.4th 40 (Cal. App. 2009) (requirement that offense aggravation be probative to current dangerousness)
- In re Dannenberg, 34 Cal.4th 1061 (Cal. 2005) (limits on using offense facts to negate current dangerousness)
- In re Powell, 188 Cal.App.4th 1530 (Cal. App. 2010) ( Board can rely on static factors if supported by rational basis)
- In re Masoner, 179 Cal.App.4th 1531 (Cal. App. 2009) (public safety as fundamental consideration in parole decisions)