In re Bailey
Decision Date | 28 March 2022 |
Docket Number | C092799 |
Citation | 76 Cal.App.5th 837,291 Cal.Rptr.3d 800 |
Parties | IN RE Larry BAILEY, On Habeas Corpus. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Rob Bonta and Matthew Rodriquez, Attorneys General, Phillip J. Lindsay, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Sara J. Romano and Amanda J. Murray, Supervising Deputy Attorneys General, Michael G. Lagrama and Linnea D. Piazza, Deputy Attorneys General, for Appellant.
Byron C. Lichstein, Auburn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Respondent.
In 2014, a jury found petitioner Larry Bailey guilty of assault with a deadly weapon and leaving the scene of an accident and found true various enhancements. Petitioner was sentenced to 28 years in prison.
( In re Kavanaugh (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 320, 334, 275 Cal.Rptr.3d 696, fns. omitted.)
In 2017 and 2018, the Board of Parole Hearings (Board) considered petitioner for Proposition 57 parole. In each of the parole consideration proceedings, the Board allowed petitioner to submit a written statement explaining why he should be granted parole. The Board explained, "[t]his is a ‘paper review’ process" and "[t]here will not be a hearing for you or others to attend." (Bolding omitted.) The Board, through written decisions by a deputy commissioner, both times denied petitioner parole. Petitioner requested administrative review of each of the parole decisions; both decisions were upheld.
Petitioner thereafter filed two petitions for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court. The trial court consolidated the petitions and issued an order to show cause. The trial court denied petitioner's claims challenging the evidentiary sufficiency of the parole denials, but granted petitioner habeas relief after finding he was entitled to "a live parole hearing at which [he] could attend." The trial court interpreted Penal Code section 3041.5 " ‘as providing for a hearing for all inmates eligible for parole consideration, at the very least to comply with federal and state due process concerns as well as equal protection.’ "
The trial court further ordered the Department to, within 60 days of the finality of the decision, promulgate new parole regulations to reflect the right to an in-person hearing under Proposition 57. The trial court explained " " The Department appeals.
The question before us is whether determinately sentenced nonviolent prisoners eligible for parole consideration under Proposition 57 are constitutionally entitled to an in-person hearing. The answer is, "no." We conclude Proposition 57 neither requires nor impliedly incorporates an in-person hearing requirement, and the Department acted within its delegated authority under section 32, subdivision (b) when it adopted the parole regulations at issue in this appeal. We further conclude the absence of an in-person hearing does not violate equal protection principles, nor does it violate a prisoner's right to procedural due process. We accordingly reverse.
The facts underlying petitioner's conviction are not material to the disposition of this appeal. We thus do not recite them here. We further do not recite the particulars as to the trial court's decision because our standard of review is de novo. ( California Grocers Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 52 Cal.4th 177, 208, 127 Cal.Rptr.3d 726, 254 P.3d 1019 [ ]; Kwan Software Engineering, Inc. v. Hennings (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 57, 82, 272 Cal.Rptr.3d 224 [ ]; Wang v. City of Sacramento Police Dept. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 372, 378-379, 283 Cal.Rptr.3d 578 [ ].) We recite only the background relevant to the pertinent parole regulations, the validity of which is the subject of this appeal.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Ernst
... ... to the validity of CDCR's regulations and the due process ... issues; it did not address equal protection ... As discussed by the parties at oral argument, a ... different panel of the Third District in In re ... Bailey ... ...
-
In re Flores (Anthony) on H.C.
... ... (Kavanaugh), which had denied a similar claim. Since ... then, two other appellate courts, also relying on ... Kavanaugh, have rejected similar due process claims ... asserting the right to an in-person hearing. (In re ... Bailey(2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 837; In re ... Ernst(May, 5, 2022, F081386) [nonpub. opn.].) ... As ... explained below, I am doubtful that the denial of in-person ... parole hearings to eligible inmates comports with due ... process. Given the statewide ... ...
-
Czodor v. Luo
...the appellate record will not be considered on appeal and such matters should not be referred to in the briefs. '" (In re Bailey (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 837, 860.) It therefore was improper for Luo to attach her declaration to her opening brief. The transcript of the telephone conversation is......
-
People v. Perez
... ... Regarding the former, ... "'[a]ppellate review is generally limited to matters ... contained in the record, [and] [f]actual matters that are not ... part of the appellate record will not be considered on appeal ... '" (In re Bailey (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th ... 837, 860.) Neither party presented the prosecutor's ... arguments to the trial court in connection with its review of ... the Petition and they, therefore, are not part of the record ... on appeal. Thus, we do not reach defendant's related ... ...