In re Kavanaugh
| Docket Number | D076500 |
| Decision Date | 25 February 2021 |
In 2016, California voters approved Proposition 57, the “Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016,” which amended the California Constitution to grant early parole consideration to persons convicted of a nonviolent felony offense. Petitioners Alexei Kavanaugh, Alberto Moreno, and Larry Smith were denied parole release under the procedures established by the parole regulations. In separate habeas corpus proceedings challenging the parole denials, the trial courts invalidated the parole...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
10 cases
-
In re Bailey
...Code Regs., tit. 15, §§ 2449.1 , 2449.3 - 2449.7 , 3490 - 3493 (hereafter, the parole regulations).)" ( 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 parol......
-
People v. Pillsbury
..., 562 U.S. at p. 220, 131 S.Ct. 859, citing Greenholtz , supra , 442 U.S. at p. 16, 99 S.Ct. 2100 ; see also In re Kavanaugh (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 320, 353, 275 Cal.Rptr.3d 696, citing In re Sturm (1974) 11 Cal.3d 258, 268-270, 113 Cal.Rptr. 361, 521 P.2d 97 [a prisoner is not entitled to p......
-
In re Ernst
...consideration" and did not violate the due process rights of the prisoner in that case; the California Supreme Court denied review in Kavanaugh. We Kavanaugh persuasive to the extent it addressed the same issues raised in this case. We further conclude the superior court erroneously grant......
-
In re Flores (Anthony) on H.C.
...Kavanaugh(2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 320 (Kavanaugh), which had denied a similar claim. Since then, two other appellate courts, also relying on Kavanaugh, have rejected similar due process asserting the right to an in-person hearing. (In re Bailey(2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 837; In re Ernst(May, 5, 202......
Get Started for Free