Board of Prison Terms v. Superior Court
Decision Date | 05 July 2005 |
Docket Number | No. H028022.,No. H027848.,No. H028006,,No. H028070.,H027848.,H028006,,H028022.,H028070. |
Citation | 130 Cal.App.4th 1212,31 Cal.Rptr.3d 70 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The BOARD OF PRISON TERMS, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Santa Clara County, Respondent; Viet Mike Ngo, Real Party in Interest. The Board of Prison Terms, Petitioner, v. The Superior Court of Santa Clara County, Respondent; Rolando Gaoiran, Real Party in Interest. The Board of Prison Terms, Petitioner, v. The Superior Court of Santa Clara County, Respondent; Daniel Bettencourt, Real Party in Interest. THE BOARD OF PRISON TERMS, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, Respondent; Donald Ray Lewis, Real Party in Interest. |
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Frances T. Grunder, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Anya M. Binsacca, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Virginia I. Papan, Elizabeth S. Kim, Song J. Hill and Denise A. Yates, Deputy Attorneys General, for Petitioner.
No appearance by Respondent.
Keith Wattley, under appointment by the Sixth Appellate Program, for Real Parties in Interest Viet Mike Ngo, Rolando Gaoiran.
Heather MacKay, under appointment by the Sixth Appellate Program, for Real Parties in Interest Daniel Bettencourt, Donald Ray Lewis.
In these original proceedings, the Board of Prison Terms (Board) seeks extraordinary relief from the superior court's orders to show cause issued in the habeas corpus proceedings pertaining to Viet Mike Ngo (In re Ngo on Habeas Corpus, case No. 127611), Rolando Gaoiran (In re Gaoiran on Habeas Corpus, case No. 105491), Daniel Bettencourt (In re Bettencourt on Habeas Corpus, case No. 79903), and Donald Ray Lewis (In re Lewis on Habeas Corpus, case No. 68038.) The Board contends that the superior court exceeded its jurisdiction when it issued orders to show cause that require the Board to respond to claims not expressly raised in the habeas corpus petitions. The Board also contends that the superior court exceeded its jurisdiction when, on its own motion, it incorporated a discovery order in the orders to show cause in the Ngo and Gaoiran cases. The discovery orders require the Board to produce the decision pages for all of the several thousand Board parole suitability hearings that were held in 2003.
For reasons that we will explain, we will issue peremptory writs of mandate vacating the orders to show cause and the discovery orders and directing the superior court to reconsider its rulings in accordance with the views expressed in this opinion.
The Board filed writ petitions seeking extraordinary relief from the superior court's orders to show cause issued in the habeas proceedings pertaining to Viet Mike Ngo (In re Ngo on Habeas Corpus, case No. 127611), Rolando Gaoiran (In re Gaoiran on Habeas Corpus, case No. 105491), Daniel Bettencourt (In re Bettencourt on Habeas Corpus, case No. 79903), and Donald Ray Lewis (In re Lewis on Habeas Corpus, case No. 68038) (collectively, real parties in interest or real parties). Since the four writ petitions similarly challenge the superior court's authority to issue an order to show cause that requires the Board to respond to claims not expressly raised in the habeas corpus petition, we ordered that these original proceedings be considered together for purposes of an order to show cause, briefing, oral argument, and decision. We also stayed all superior court proceedings while our writ review was pending. A brief summary of the factual and procedural background of each matter follows.
In 1988, when he was 18 years old, Viet Mike Ngo killed a 14-year-old boy in a drive-by shooting. While a passenger in an automobile traveling on Highway 101, Ngo fired four bullets into a nearby vehicle, striking and fatally injuring the victim. Ngo pleaded guilty to second degree murder (Pen.Code, § 187)1 in 1989, and he was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison.
The Board held a parole suitability hearing on October 7, 2003. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board issued a two-year denial of parole suitability. The denial was based on the Board's finding that Ngo's release from prison would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, in light of the especially cruel and callous nature of the murder and Ngo's inexplicable motive. The Board also determined that Ngo was unsuitable for parole based on his escalating pattern of criminal conduct and his need for additional prison programming.
Ngo filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in propria persona in the superior court in which he challenged the Board's denial of parole. The habeas corpus petition states the following 11 issues:
In his points and authorities in support of the habeas corpus petition, Ngo also argued that the Board violated due process by denying parole to approximately 98 percent of inmates, although section 3041, subdivision (a), provides that the Board "shall normally set a parole release date." Further, Ngo claimed that the Board's failure to fix his prison term at a number of years proportional to his crime violated his federal due process rights.
On August 4, 2004, the superior court issued an order requiring the Attorney General, as attorney for the Board, to show cause why Ngo was not entitled to the relief sought in his habeas corpus petition. The order included the following statement of the issues:
The "Honesto order" attached to the order to show cause is the order granting the petition for writ of habeas corpus in In re Honesto, case No. 98079, filed April 13, 2004 (hereafter, the Honesto order). The 14-page Honesto order remanded the matter to the Board for a new hearing on the ground that the Board had erred in recharacterizing Honesto's crime as first degree murder in violation of Honesto's plea to second degree murder. The superior court also determined that the evidence did not support the Board's unsuitability findings of unstable social history, arrest record, lack of letters of support, and insufficient participation in self-help programs. Further, the Honesto order included the superior court's ruling that 2
In its order to show cause in the Ngo case, the superior court made the following statement in addition to incorporating its ruling in the Honesto case: "[T]he Board is operating with a policy of bias and a predetermination to deny parole to all but the most stellar candidates after they have already exceeded their matrix time ... [Ngo] `contends that as a matter of law and logic a parole granting rate of two-percent by the Board fails to comply with the mandate of Penal Code...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Kavanaugh
... ... D076500 D076821 D077003 Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California. Filed ... , an opportunity to submit a written statement to the Board of Parole Hearings (the Board), and the right to seek ... a nonviolent felony offense and sentenced to state prison shall be eligible for parole consideration after completing ... 738, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 270, 883 P.2d 388.) "Many superior courts have likewise adopted the practice of issuing an ... in the habeas corpus petition." ( Board of Prison Terms v. Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1212, 1235, 31 ... ...
-
In re Corpus
... ... No. S124660. Supreme Court of California Aug. 30, 2012. As Modified on Denial of ... I['v]e been in Atascadero [State Prison] ... " " ( Memro II, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 812, 47 ... 832, 700 P.2d 446 ( Memro I ); see Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531, 113 Cal.Rptr. 897, 522 P.2d ... It is not sufficient simply to allege in general terms that the claim recently was discovered, to assert that ... 2d 1252 [quoting italicized passage with approval]; Board of Prison Terms v. Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th ... ...
-
In re Stier
... ... No. A112248 ... Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1 ... June 15, 2007 ... his felony conviction to the California Medical Board (the Medical Board), and as part of a stipulated settlement ... Superior Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 107, 122, 130 Cal.Rptr. 257, 550 ... `[T]he terms "waiver" and "forfeiture" have long been used ... since the founding of the state.'" ( Board of Prison Terms v. Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1212, 1233, ... ...
-
Murr v. Marshall
... ... EDCV 04-1380-TJH (MAN) ... United States District Court, C.D. California ... November 25, 2009 ... Page 1029 ... is necessary under California law to support the Board's or the Governor's decision that an inmate is unsuitable ... Superior Court jury convicted Petitioner of: (1) one count of first ... sentenced Petitioner to seven years to life in state prison. ( Id. ) ... Petitioner was received by ... consideration hearing before the Board of Prison Terms (the "Board") 1 on July 7, 1983, and was found unsuitable ... ...