In re Ryner
196 Cal. App. 4th 533
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Ryner filed a habeas petition challenging the Governor’s January 2010 reversal of the Board’s August 11, 2009 parole grant.
- The superior court issued an order to show cause; after briefing and a traverse, the court reinstated the Board’s parole grant.
- Ryner’s underlying commitment offense includes the 1981 Red Spark Lounge shooting (three victims, one fatal) and two 1980 knife assaults, all while intoxicated.
- The Board at the August 11, 2009 hearing found Ryner suitable for parole, citing maturation, rehabilitation, long-term positive behavior, and parole plans.
- The Governor conducted a de novo review and reversed, expressing concerns about lack of full insight into the life offense and insufficient participation in self-help/therapy.
- The court held that the Governor’s reversal was not supported by some evidence of current dangerousness and reinstated the Board’s parole release order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Governor’s reversal had some evidence support | Ryner | Ryner | Governor reversal not supported by some evidence; reinstatement affirmed |
| Whether lack of insight can justify current dangerousness here | Ryner | Governor | Lack of insight not shown as material deficiency; not current dangerousness |
| Role of offense gravity vs. rehabilitation in denial | Ryner | Governor | Gravity alone cannot sustain denial when rehabilitation and lack of current danger are evident |
| Remedy when record shows no some-evidence basis for denial | Ryner | Governor | Remand to Governor not required; reinstate Board’s parole order; no remand remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Lazor, 172 Cal.App.4th 1185 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (some evidence standard for parole review when no evidentiary hearing)
- In re Rosenkrantz, 29 Cal.4th 616 (Cal. 2002) (scope of due process in parole decisions; some evidence standard)
- In re Criscione, 180 Cal.App.4th 1446 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (deference to Governor’s factual findings; some evidence review)
- In re Shaputis, 44 Cal.4th 1241 (Cal. 2008) (lack of insight as a basis for current dangerousness; new talisman concept)
- Lawrence, 44 Cal.4th 1181 (Cal. 2008) (gravity of offense vs. rehabilitation; timing after base term)
- Prather, 50 Cal.4th 238 (Cal. 2010) (remedy after lack of evidence should not fix evidence category; remand limits)
- Dannenberg, 173 Cal.App.4th 237 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (remand not appropriate when no evidence supports Governor’s denial)
- Rico, 171 Cal.App.4th 659 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (insight/remorse evaluation; limitations of lack of insight as sole basis)
- Roderick, 154 Cal.App.4th 242 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (interpretation of defendant’s understanding and responsibility as risk factor)