In re Elkins
Decision Date | 31 October 2006 |
Docket Number | No. A111925.,A111925. |
Citation | 144 Cal.App.4th 475,50 Cal.Rptr.3d 503 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | In re Jeffrey David ELKINS on Habeas Corpus. |
Jeffrey David Elkins, in pro per.
Michael Satris, by appointment of the Court of Appeal, Under the First District Appellate District, Bolinas, for Petitioner.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, James M. Humes, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Frances T. Grunder, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Anya M. Binsacca, Supervising Dep. Atty. Gen., Stan Helfman, Supervising Dep. Atty. Gen., Scott Mather, Deputy Attorney General, Denise A Yates, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent.
Jeffrey David Elkins was convicted by jury in 1980 of first degree murder and robbery, with use of a deadly weapon, and sentenced to a prison term of 25 years to life. On March 4, 2005, the Board of Parole Hearings (Board)1 found him suitable for, and granted, parole.
The Governor reviewed that decision and, on July 29, 2005, reversed it. Elkins challenges the reversal by petition for writ of habeas corpus, and we issued an order to show cause. The Attorney General has now filed a return, and Elkins a denial to the return. We grant Elkins relief and reinstate his Board grant of parole.
This was Elkins's eleventh time (10th subsequent parole consideration hearing) before the Board. His almost yearly appearances had begun in early 1993, as his minimum parole eligibility date neared.
A 2005 life prisoner evaluation report (the report) took this initial summary of the commitment offenses from the 1980 probation officer's report: Elkins and his victim, Larry Ecklund, were 19 years old, high school classmates and drug dealing associates. Elkins owed Ecklund money for drug purchases and was having difficulty paying. On June 16,1979, the two were at a party at the home of Robert Lambrecht, a mutual friend and Elkins's partner in the crime to unfold. Lambrecht's parents were not home, and Elkins and Ecklund stayed overnight. Elkins entered a room where Ecklund was sleeping, intending to rob him of money and drugs. During the robbery, Ecklund woke up and attacked Elkins with a knife. Elkins beat him over the head with a baseball bat, ending his life. Elkins put the body in his car trunk and drove to a remote area near Truckee, California, where he dumped the body. Elkins robbed Ecklund's storage area and a girlfriend's house before leaving the state. His car was found, abandoned, in Montana, and he was arrested eventually in Washington State and waived extradition to California.
The report also related Elkins's own account: He and Ecklund were at the home "drinking alcohol and consuming cocaine." When Ecklund passed out, Elkins took him upstairs and laid him in a bed and then went back downstairs and kept drinking and using drugs. Once others at the party left, Elkins went back up to the room. Elkins "hit him again," but did not "remember how many times ... because he was very intoxicated." Elkins went to Lambrecht and told him what happened and that everything had "gotten out of hand." Lambrecht, he said, "knew about his intent to rob Ecklund, but neither of them planned to kill him." Elkins moved the body to his car trunk, and he and Lambrecht then cleaned up the room. Elkins left the bat at the house without cleaning it. He drove to an area near Truckee and "dumped the body down the side of a hill because he was too upset to bury the body."
Elkins confirmed his account at the hearing, explaining: "I was severely addicted to drugs and alcohol." He was 19 Asked whether he attacked first, Elkins said, [¶] ... He added: Elkins did not "know" or "remember" how many times. "I wish I hadn't done it," he said:
Letters from Alameda County Senior Deputy District Attorney Roekne Harmon, a prosecutor in Elkins's case, and from the Chief of Police for the City of Pleasanton, urged denying parole. Harmon had written before to oppose release. These sources noted that Elkins had not always been forthcoming about the facts. The amount and location of Ecklund's blood on the bedroom wall, ceiling, hall, mattress, and in Elkins's car trunk, was evidence all along that Elkins had struck multiple blows with the bat. After the murder, Elkins had put the body in his trunk in the residence's garage, dragged Ecklund down a flight of stairs to the car and then slept in the house. According to the police chief, a resident asked Elkins about noise coming from Elkins's car trunk, but Elkins dismissed the inquiry. "" Elkins stood trial and was convicted before revealing where he had dumped the body. Ecklund's family and friends had to wait 10 months for closure on their loss. Officers found Ecklund's body partially eaten by animals and strewn about the gorge. Even then, Elkins "didn't show remorse."
Elkins had dropped out of high school after 11th grade to work, but had by now completed his GED and taken college courses in ministry. The report detailed a superb record of achievement in classes, programs and vocational training while in prison. Commendations and letters of support abounded, and he enjoyed enthusiastic support from prison staff, with no serious disciplinary history for well over 20 years. He had good job skills, job prospects, and a waiting job offer at a hardware store. He had made plans for reintegrating into society, had arranged to live with his mother in Livermore, and had a pledge of support from a local church.
Elkins had an arrest for misdemeanor burglary as a youth, but no contact with juvenile authorities. He reported having begun drinking and using marijuana and cocaine in the 11th grade. He worked as an automotive painter, and had done landscaping and contract labor. At the time of the murder, he was on probation for burglary and had a pending charge of grand theft. Elkins was unmarried before his incarceration but, seven years before this hearing, had married. His wife had filed for divorce. He explained, "She decided that she couldn't keep hanging on year after year and waiting and not knowing if I'd ever get out and she wanted to go on."
Psychiatric evaluations indicated a low risk of violence, that he would do well outside, and that he had achieved good self-awareness and self-image. He told the panel:
Illustrating his drive to help others, Elkins said, was an incident two years earlier when a correctional officer, Goad, fell from a tree at San Quentin. Goad wrote in support of Elkins, stressing how remarkable it was that an inmate would show concern for an officer's safety. ""
The Board panel, in a decision rendered orally by its presiding commissioner, concluded: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Lawrence
......That is, these cases implicitly acknowledge that the overarching consideration . 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 565 . in the suitability determination is whether the inmate is currently a threat to public safety." 85 . Also decided in late 2006, In re Elkins 86 ordered the forthwith release of a prisoner who had been convicted of first degree murder in 1980 receiving a sentence of 25 years to life and whose recommended parole in 2005 had been reversed by the Governor. As is true in Lawrence's case, the primary grounds for the Governor's rejection of ......
-
Saldate v. Adams
......Rptr.3d 147 (2006); see also In re Elkins, 144 Cal.App.4th 475, 499, 50 Cal.Rptr.3d 503 (2006). "The test is not whether some evidence supports the reasons .. cite[d] for denying parole, but whether some evidence indicates a parolee's release unreasonably endangers public safety. Some evidence of the existence of a particular factor does ......
-
In re Lawrence
......263, 65 Cal.Rptr.3d 16; Gray, supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at p. 410, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 724; Barker, supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at p. 366, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 746; Tripp, supra, 150 Cal. App.4th at p. 313, 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 64; Weider, supra, 145 Cal.App.4th at p. 589, 52 Cal. Rptr.3d 147; Elkins, supra, 144 Cal.App.4th at p. 499, 50 Cal.Rptr.3d 503; Lee, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 1408, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 931; Scott, supra, 133 Cal.App.4th at p. 595, 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 905.) As articulated in Lee, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th 1400, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 931, these decisions conclude that "[s]ome ......
-
In re Roderick
...App.4th at p. 1408, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 931.) The dissent rejects the standard articulated in Lee and applied in In re Elkins (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 475, 502, 50 Cal. Rptr.3d 503, In re Tripp (2007) 150 Cal. App.4th 306, 313, 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 64, and Barker, supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at page 366, 59 ......