In re Tapia
144 Cal. Rptr. 3d 190
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Tapia was convicted in 1993 of first-degree attempted murder with weapon enhancement, conspiracy to commit murder, and kidnapping, and sentenced to 26 years to life with possibility of parole.
- Vega demanded repayment; Tapia planned and carried out a murder with an accomplice, Psycho, by strangulation and stabbing, then fled to Mexico and later returned to California.
- Tapia was paroled at issue after serving more than 15 years, and the Board found him not suitable for parole due to risk to public safety.
- A 2010 psychological evaluation by Dr. Kropf found Tapia’s remorse genuine and low violence risk, but noted limited insight regarding his co-offender.
- The Board’s decision rested in part on Tapia’s failure to disclose Psycho’s identity before the parole hearing and on downplaying the planning of the crime.
- The trial court granted a writ of habeas corpus, but the appellate court reversed, holding some evidence supported the Board’s unsuitability determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there some evidence Tapia is currently dangerous based on failure to take full responsibility? | Tapia argues acceptance of responsibility favors parole. | Board relied on lack of full responsibility and related risk. | Yes, there is some evidence supporting unsuitability. |
| Does Tapia’s late disclosure of his co-offender support unsuitability? | Tapia contends late disclosure should not doom parole. | Late disclosure indicates ongoing threat and noncompliance with societal duties. | Yes, late disclosure provides substantial support for unsuitability. |
| Did the Board’s consideration of Tapia’s credibility and planning satisfy due process under the governing standard? | Tapia contends credibility issues and planning were not properly weighed. | Board properly weighed credibility and planning, consistent with law. | There is rational nexus; Court defers to Board’s assessment under some evidence standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Lawrence, 44 Cal.4th 1181 (Cal. 2008) (current dangerousness standard; deferential review under some evidence)
- In re Rosenkrantz, 29 Cal.4th 616 (Cal. 2002) (some evidence standard; individualized consideration)
- In re Shaputis, 53 Cal.4th 192 (Cal. 2011) (highly deferential review; court considers record as a whole)
- In re McClendon, 113 Cal.App.4th 315 (Cal. App. 2003) (acceptance of responsibility and magnitude of offense as evidence)
- In re Palermo, 171 Cal.App.4th 1096 (Cal. App. 2009) (continued denial of intentionality not automatically disqualifying)
- In re Elkins, 144 Cal.App.4th 475 (Cal. App. 2006) (early acceptance of responsibility may affect result; context matters)
- In re Lazor, 172 Cal.App.4th 1185 (Cal. App. 2009) (review of habeas corpus decisions; de novo standard)
- Roberts v. United States, 445 U.S. 552 (U.S. 1980) (public duty to report known criminal activity; privilege limits)