In re Morganti
139 Cal. Rptr. 3d 430
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Morganti, born 1951, killed Ron Turner in 1991 and was convicted of second-degree murder and arson, sentenced to 21 years to life.
- He has long prison tenure with exemplary conduct and extensive participation in AA/NA and other rehabilitative programs.
- The Board denied parole in 2010 after a four-hour hearing, citing relapse risk linked to his substance abuse and inadequate insight.
- Superior Court granted habeas corpus relief, remanding for a new parole hearing, finding the Board’s lack of insight finding unsupported by the record.
- The Board’s decision and related risk assessments consistently found Morganti to be low risk for violence; Morganti sought discovery and an evidentiary hearing challenging systemic Board practices.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board’s denial rested on a rational some-evidence basis of current dangerousness | Morganti argues no substantial evidence links lack of insight to current danger | Board asserts its decision is supported by factors including offense gravity and relapse risk | Not supported: record lacks rational nexus between stated factors and current danger |
| Whether Morganti’s insight into causative factors of his addiction supports or undermines parole suitability | Morganti contends he shows thoughtful insight and commitment to AA/NA | Board viewed inadequate insight as a risk factor for unsuitability | No evidentiary link showing lack of insight to current risk; assessment insufficient for denial |
| Whether Morganti is entitled to discovery/evidentiary hearing on systemic Board practices and individualized consideration | Requests discovery to probe potential Board policy undermining individualized parole review | Issue deemed non-justiciable or not properly developed at this stage | Not decided by majority; remanding not ordered for discovery; concurrence urges further consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Young, 204 Cal.App.4th 288 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (establishes framework and standard for “some evidence” review of parole denials)
- In re Shaputis (Shaputis II), 53 Cal.4th 192 (Cal. 2011) (highly deferential some-evidence review and individualized consideration)
- In re Dannenberg, 34 Cal.4th 1061 (Cal. 2005) (DSL vs ISL context; proportionality and term-setting concerns)
- In re Prather, 50 Cal.4th 238 (Cal. 2010) (remand/remedy when Board’s process violations alleged)
- In re Lawrence, 44 Cal.4th 1181 (Cal. 2008) (parole requires individualized assessment of risk and factors)
- In re Rosenkrantz, 29 Cal.4th 616 (Cal. 2002) (some evidence standard; due process constraints)
- Rodriguez, 14 Cal.3d 639 (Cal. 1975) (proportionality; Rodriguez remedy to fix primary term promptly)
- Wingo, 14 Cal.3d 169 (Cal. 1975) (constitutional review of indeterminate life sentences; term-setting)
- Minnis, 7 Cal.3d 639 (Cal. 1972) (policy-based denial of parole violates individualized consideration)
- Smith, In re Smith, 114 Cal.App.4th 343 (Cal. App. 2003) (drug history alone does not establish current danger)