In re Ilasa

• Decision Date: 19 September 2016
• Docket Number: D069629
• Citation: 3 Cal.App.5th 489,208 Cal.Rptr.3d 17
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: IN RE WILLIAM ILASA on Habeas Corpus.

3 Cal.App.5th 489

208 Cal.Rptr.3d 17

IN RE WILLIAM ILASA on Habeas Corpus.

D069629

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.

Filed September 19, 2016

William Ilasa, in pro. per.; Richard Pfeiffer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioner.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Phillip J. Lindsay, Assistant Attorney General, Rachael A. Campbell, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent.

IRION, J.

In this habeas corpus proceeding, we consider whether a decision of the Board of Prison Hearings (Board) that denies an inmate parole following a review procedure enacted pursuant to a federal court order is subject to state court judicial review and, if so, whether the Board violated the petitioner's due process rights in denying him early release in this case. The federal court order at issue was issued by a three-judge court in prison class action litigation after the court found that California state prisoners' federal constitutional rights had been violated as a result of overcrowding, after the court found that a prison release order was the only relief capable of remedying the constitutional deficiencies, after the United States Supreme Court affirmed those rulings, after the three-judge court issued its remedial order in reliance on the state defendants' representation and agreement that they would develop comprehensive and sustainable prison population-reduction reforms, and after the state defendants agreed not to contest the remedial order.

We issued an order to show cause in response to the petition of William Ilasa based on his allegations that he was denied due process of law when, at the conclusion of a prison-reduction procedure developed pursuant to the order of the three-judge court, the Board did not grant him parole as a non-violent, non-sex-registrant second-strike (NVSS) inmate. We conclude that, because the Board's decision involves a constitutionally protected liberty interest, Ilasa is entitled to judicial review of the decision. We further conclude that, because the record of what was presented to the Board during the review process contains some evidence to support the Board's decision, Ilasa's due process rights were not violated.

Accordingly, we will consider Ilasa's petition on its merits and deny it.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Ilasa's Commitment Offense and Sentence

In February 2010, Ilasa was convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, former § 12021, subd. (a)(1);¹ subsequent unidentified statutory references are to this code) with a true finding as to a gang allegation (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). This conviction was a second strike, and in May 2010 the superior court sentenced Ilasa to a determinate term of nine years—the upper term of three years on the felony, doubled due to the second strike, and three years on the enhancement.

B. Federal Court Litigation; February 2014 Order of the Three–judge Court

On April 23, 1990, a group of plaintiffs filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, entitled Coleman v. Deukmejian , No. 2:90–cv–00520–LKK (Coleman ). On April 5, 2001, a group of plaintiffs filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Plata v. Davis , No. 3:01–cv–01351–TEH (Plata ). The amended complaints in both class actions raised federal constitutional and statutory claims based on alleged inadequacies in the delivery of mental health care (Coleman ) and medical care (Plata ) to inmates in the California adult prison system.²

In each of the class actions, the district court entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion to convene a three-judge court to consider limiting the prison population by issuing a prisoner release order.³ ( Cole man , supra ; Plata , supra .) Each district court recommended that the two cases be assigned to the same three-judge court. (See Coleman v. Brown (E.D. Cal. & N.D. Cal. 2013) 922 F.Supp.2d 1004, 1009.) The Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed and in July 2007 convened a three-judge district court pursuant to 28 United States Code section 2284. (922 F.Supp.2d at p. 1009.) From this point forward, all orders of the three-judge court were entered in both Coleman and Plata .

In August 2009, the three-judge court, having heard 14 days of testimony, issued a 122–page opinion. (Coleman v. Schwarzenegger (E.D. Cal. & N.D. Cal. 2009) 922 F.Supp.2d 882, 916.) The court found by clear and convincing evidence that overcrowding was the primary cause of the constitutional inadequacies in the delivery of mental (Coleman ) and medical (Plata ) care to California inmates and that no relief other than a “prisoner release order,” as that term is defined in 18 United States Code section 3626(g)(4), was capable of remedying the constitutional deficiencies. (922 F.Supp.2d at pp. 949–951.) The three-judge court concluded by ordering Defendants to “reduce the prisoner population to 137.5% of the adult institutions' total design capacity” within two years. (Id. at p. 962 ; see id . at pp. 970, 1003.) The Governor appealed to the United States Supreme Court from this order. (See Brown v. Plata (2011) 563 U.S. 493, 131 S.Ct. 1910, 179 L.Ed.2d 969.)

While the appeal was pending, Defendants proposed a specific plan to reduce the state's prisoner population. (Coleman , supra [see 2010 WL 99000, p. *1].) Other parties, including intervenors, objected, and the three-judge court extended the deadline by which Defendants were required to reduce the population of California's 33 adult prisons to no more than 137.5% of design capacity. (Id . at pp. *1–*3.) The three-judge court also set intermediate goals and deadlines and stayed the effective date of its order—and thus, the two-year deadline for complete compliance—pending the United States Supreme Court's disposition of the appeal from the August 2009 order. (Id. at p. *4.) The Governor also appealed to the United States Supreme Court from this order, and the Supreme Court affirmed both orders in Brown v. Plata , supra , 563 U.S. at page 545, 131 S.Ct. 1910.

After receiving the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Plata , supra , 563 U.S. 493, 131 S.Ct. 1910, in June 2011 the three-judge court filed an order setting specific dates for Defendants' interim and final compliance with the requirement to reduce the California prisoner population to no more than 137.5% of total design capacity. Those deadlines were later extended by an order of the three-judge court filed February 10, 2014 (February 2014 Order).⁴

Among various other rulings, in order to reach the required goals established in the February 2014 Order, the three-judge court ordered—and Defendants agreed—that Defendants would “immediately implement ” a number of measures, including as relevant to the present proceeding, the creation of “a new parole determination process through which non-violent second-strikers will be eligible for parole consideration by the Board ... once they have served 50% of their sentence .” (Italics added.)

C. Defendants' Compliance with the February 2014 Order

Pursuant to the above-quoted directive in the February 2014 Order, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) created a process entitled “Non–Violent, Non–Sex–Registrant, Second–Strike (NVSS) Review,” which was implemented on January 1, 2015. ( [as of Sept. 16, 2016] (the NVSS Procedures).) As set out on the CDCR website, the NVSS Procedures set forth eligibility requirements and an administrative review process for those inmates determined to be eligible for review. (NVSS Procedures, supra , Eligibility; id . Hearing Officers and Procedure.) The purpose of the administrative review is to determine—and, thus, the standard to be applied by the Board is—whether the inmate's release “would pose an unreasonable risk to public safety.” (Id. Hearing Officers and Procedure.)

D. Ilasa's Review

Inmates eligible for NVSS review include those whose terms were doubled under either section 667, subdivisions (b)-(i), or section 1170.12 and who have served 50 percent of their actual sentence. (NVSS Procedures, supra , Eligibility.)

Applying the NVSS Procedures to Ilasa, the Board determined that it had jurisdiction, found that Ilasa was eligible for NVSS review, provided Ilasa with NVSS review, and denied release in a written ruling in August 2015. The Board determined that, if released, Ilasa would “pose[ ] an unreasonable risk of violence on the community,” based on the following general findings: Ilasa's current commitment offense was an aggravating factor; Ilasa's prior criminal record was an aggravating factor; Ilasa's institutional behavior was a mitigating factor; and Ilasa had no medical condition that would impact his ability to reoffend.⁵ Ilasa timely requested reconsideration, and in September 2015, the Board affirmed the decision to deny release. Pursuant to the review criteria in California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 2042, the Board found that there was no mistake of law or fact in the denial of Ilasa's release.⁶

E. Ilasa's Petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus

Dissatisfied with the Board's decision to deny release, Ilasa filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the superior court, case Nos. HCN 1417 and SCN 233219. The court denied this petition in December 2015.

Representing himself, Ilasa initiated the present habeas corpus writ proceeding in this court by filing a petition in January 2016.⁷ In April 2016, the Attorney General filed an informal response, and in May 2016 we issued an order to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.⁸ Ilasa filed a supplement to the petition; the Attorney General filed a return; and Ilasa filed a traverse.

Ilasa argues that he was not afforded due process when the Board denied him parole pursuant to the NVSS Procedures. More specifically, Ilasa contends that the record before the Board contains ...