In re Twinn
190 Cal. App. 4th 447
Cal. Ct. App.2010Background
- Twinn was convicted in 1992 of second degree murder and sentenced to 15 years to life.
- Board parole hearings granted Twinn parole in 2006, 2008, and 2009, each time reversed by the Governor.
- In 2010 Twinn filed a habeas petition challenging the Governor’s reversal of the 2009 Board decision as not supported by some evidence of current dangerousness.
- The Governor based reversals on the nature of the commitment offense, Twinn’s alleged lack of insight, and purportedly insufficient parole plans.
- Twinn has a long history of rehabilitation in prison, with multiple positive psychological evaluations finding low risk of dangerousness, and he has secured or pursued marketable skills and job offers for post-release.
- The court ultimately granted Twinn habeas relief, vacated the Governor’s reversal, and ordered the Board to proceed with usual parole procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Governor’s 2010 reversal was supported by some evidence of current dangerousness | Twinn argues no evidence supports current danger | Twinn’s current dangerousness supported by lack of insight and offense factors | Governor’s reversal violates due process; not supported by some evidence |
| Whether the Governor properly considered Twinn’s parole plans | Twinn asserts viable, realistic parole plans existed (e.g., Venice 2000 offer) | Governor found parole plans lacking | There is some evidence of viable plans; reversal not supported by record |
| Whether Twinn’s past minimization of involvement shows current dangerousness | Past minimization is not determinative of current risk; Twinn has shown remorse and responsibility | Lack of full insight and conflicting statements indicate current danger | No rational nexus between past minimization and current dangerousness; not sufficient alone |
| Remedy for Governor’s reversal | Remand or habeas relief appropriate to restore Board’s parole | Remand may be necessary to reassess but not required | Remedy granted; Governor’s reversal vacated; Board to proceed with parole proceedings within defined process |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Vasquez, 170 Cal.App.4th 370 (Cal.App.4th 2009) (parole review standards and due process considerations)
- Rosenkrantz v. California, 29 Cal.4th 616 (Cal.4th 2002) (some evidence standard for parole decisions; need for rational nexus)
- In re Lawrence, 44 Cal.4th 1181 (Cal.4th 2008) (clarified robust, individualized assessment for current dangerousness; nexus requirement)
- In re Shaputis, 44 Cal.4th 1241 (Cal.4th 2008) (importance of current dangerousness and individualized factors)
- People v. Palermo, 171 Cal.App.4th 1096 (Cal.App.4th 2009) (Board may consider inmate’s acceptance of responsibility and remorse; rejection of delusional defenses where appropriate)
- In re Criscione, 180 Cal.App.4th 1446 (Cal.App.4th 2009) (relevance of evidence to current dangerousness; context of factor analysis)