7 Cal. App. 5th 65
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Perez, 16 years old at the life crime, was convicted of kidnapping during a carjacking and kidnapping to commit robbery in 1999 and sentenced to seven years to life with a 1-year firearm enhancement.
- He petitioned for habeas relief after the Board denied parole in 2014 and 2016, challenging both the sufficiency of current dangerousness evidence and failure to set base/adjusted base terms per Butler.
- The 2014 parole hearing denied parole citing lack of insight into the life crime and prison disciplinary history; a 3-year denial followed.
- A 2014 psychological evaluation by Dr. Smith found moderate risk and noted Perez’s lack of full insight and responsibility for the life crime, while acknowledging substantial institutional progress.
- The 2016 parole hearing again denied parole, based on a claim of innocence regarding the life crime, and used questions about the life crime to justify current dangerousness in contravention of Board regulations.
- The court remanded to the Board for new proceedings, concluding the Board’s two denials were not supported by a rational nexus to current dangerousness and violated penalties on admission of guilt and youth considerations; mootness of base-term issue due to a later base-term action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 2014 denial rested on rational current dangerousness | Perez lacked insight; evidence tied to youth and risk signals. | Board properly considered lack of insight and rule violations as indicators of danger. | Board denial improper; not supported by some evidence of current dangerousness. |
| Whether 2016 denial rested on implausible innocence finding | Board impermissibly relied on innocence denial and interrogated life-crime facts in violation of Regs., § 2236 and § 5011. | Implausibility of innocence could support risk assessment under case law. | Board’s reliance on innocence denial violated due process; remand required. |
| Whether Board failed to set a base term per Butler and if that is moot | Board violated the Butler stipulated order by not setting base/adjusted base terms. | Board later set a base/adjusted base term, rendering the issue moot. | Issue moot; no further action required on base-term calculation. |
| What remedy should follow on remand | Board should re-evaluate with proper standards and allow evidence not tainted by prior errors. | Proceed with expedited consideration and potential new hearing as allowed. | Remand to permit Board to review record for new evidence; if none, parole granted subject to Governor review; if evidence exists, conduct expedited parole hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Shaputis, 53 Cal.4th 192 (2011) (some evidence standard; focus on current dangerousness and proper factors)
- In re Rosenkrantz, 29 Cal.4th 616 (2002) (guides due process and factor application in parole decisions)
- In re Prather, 50 Cal.4th 238 (2010) (requires rational nexus between evidence and current dangerousness)
- In re Butler, 236 Cal.App.4th 1222 (2015) (base/adjusted base term issue; procedural posture in Butler context)
- People v. Jackson, 193 Cal.App.4th 1376 (2011) (regulations restrict reliance on prisoner's refusal to discuss life offense)
- In re Swanigan, 240 Cal.App.4th 1 (2015) (limits Board reliance on an inmate's denial of guilt when evaluating insight)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (holds juvenile nonhomicide offenders cannot be subjected to life without parole)
- Caballero, 55 Cal.4th 262 (2012) (recognizes diminished culpability of juveniles; growth and maturity considerations)