In re Lawrence

Decision Date22 May 2007
Docket NumberNo. B190874.,B190874.
Citation59 Cal.Rptr.3d 537,150 Cal.App.4th 1511
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesIn re Sandra Davis LAWRENCE, on Habeas Corpus.

Bill Lockyer and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorneys General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Senior Assistant Attorney General, J. Conrad Schroeder, Jennifer A. Neill and Gregory J. Marcot, Deputy Attorneys General, for Respondent.

JOHNSON, J.

This habeas corpus proceeding arises after Governor Schwarzenegger's (Governor) second reversal of a Board of Parole Hearings's (Board) grant of release on parole, decided in 2005. These two reversals were the third and fourth time a Governor has reversed such a grant of parole to this petitioner in the past dozen years. On August 24, 2006, we issued an order to show cause in order to review the Governor's action. Finding the Governor lacked "some evidence" the petitioner's release on parole would represent an "unreasonable risk" of danger to the community under either state or federal constitutional standards, we grant a writ vacating the Governor's reversal and reinstating the Board's 2005 grant of a parole release to petitioner.

1. Lawrence's personal history, the crime and its aftermath.

Sandra Davis Lawrence (Lawrence), an African-American woman, was born and raised in Birmingham, Alabama, the youngest of 12 children. At the time of her birth, her father was 68 and her mother 40.1 As the youngest child, Lawrence spent much of her teenage years as a nanny for her older siblings' babies and young children while the parents worked or attended college, as well as a caretaker for a mentally retarded sister. After graduation from high school as an average student, Lawrence left Alabama for Chicago where she lived with one of her brothers and his wife. She soon had what was her first serious boyfriend, William Lawrence, got pregnant, married him and later had a second boy. Along the way, her husband took up again with his previous girlfriend. Lawrence finally gave up, and fled with her two young boys to Los Angeles where another married brother and another sister lived.

Lawrence's Los Angeles brother was an established dentist while the sister was Sandra's next youngest sibling, with whom she had always had a contentious and competitive relationship. She took a job as a receptionist in her brother's dental office. Also working for the brother in his dental practice was another dentist, Robert Williams (Mr. Williams), who was married to Rubye Williams (Mrs. Williams). Lawrence and Mr. Williams were soon drawn into a serious affair.

Mr. Williams rented an apartment for Lawrence and provided her with an automobile as well. This relationship started in June 1970 and Mr. Williams was spending nearly half his time with Lawrence, frequently moving into her apartment for days at a time. At some point Mrs. Williams learned of the affair and began pressuring the husband to end it, threatening to take the couple's children and leave him. Mrs. Williams frequently drove to Lawrence's apartment when Mr. Williams was there and left notes on the door and sometimes exchanged vehicles, leaving hers and taking her husband's. There were even three-way, emotional and contentious telephone conversations among the wife, the husband, and the mistress.

Mr. Williams repeatedly told Lawrence he was going to divorce his wife and marry her. But when he failed to follow through with any of these promises, Lawrence finally told Mr. Williams it was over and terminated the relationship in late 1970.

On February 10, 1971, Lawrence was celebrating her 24th birthday at a family party held in her brother's home when Mr. Williams arrived unexpectedly and uninvited. He declared to everyone he Was going to leave his wife and return to Lawrence, if she would have him. Lawrence and Mr. Williams spent the rest of that day and the weekend together, reaffirming their love and making plans for their future together. Mr. Williams was then in the process of opening his own dental office and wanted Lawrence to get a dental assistant certificate and join him in this venture.

Mr. Williams returned to his home Monday morning with the avowed intent of informing his wife he would be seeking a divorce in order to marry Lawrence. However, later that day he called Lawrence and told her he could not go through with it. He could not stand losing his children, and would be staying with his wife. During the conversation, he mentioned Mrs. Williams was at the new dental office waiting for the delivery of some equipment.

Lawrence was enraged at Mr. Williams's betrayal. She eventually explained her state of mind and motivation during therapy with prison psychologists. She took out her anger at Mr. Williams on Mrs. Williams, perceiving her not as a human being but as an obstacle. It was Mrs. Williams whose pressure on Mr. Williams was preventing Lawrence from having a future with him. In a rage, she drove over to the dental office to vent her anger on Mrs. Williams. Anticipating a possible confrontation she took along a potato peeler and also stopped off at her sister's home on the way to pick up a pistol the sister kept under a mattress. There was a struggle in the office, with the two rolling around on the floor, what Lawrence later characterized as a regular "cat fight." Finally, Lawrence pulled out the firearm, fired wildly at Mrs. Williams wounding her in the hand, arm, leg, and neck, and then stabbed her with the potato peeler.

Lawrence returned to her sister's home and replaced the pistol under the mattress, then went to her brother's house and collapsed. A few weeks later, the sister discovered the pistol had been fired. She contacted the police and told them the handgun had been used and it wasn't her or anyone in her household. She also said Lawrence had told family members she had killed Mrs. Williams as a birthday present to herself.

A few weeks after Mrs. Williams's death, Lawrence was in Chicago in connection with an industrial accident lawsuit she had filed in that city. Her family called and told her the FBI said there was a fugitive warrant for her arising from the death of Mrs. Williams. Lawrence flew back to Los Angeles, but during the flight decided she could not turn herself in at that time. So she fled on a bus to Las Vegas. She remained there for three months, supporting herself as a gambler, then used her gambling winnings to move to Puerto Rico where she stayed for three years, earning a living in a real estate agency. Her next stop was New York City where she worked for two years in advertising sales for a local television publication. Then she moved to Pennsylvania where she trained as a cosmetologist. She used that training to work as a hairdresser, cosmetology teacher and later a beauty salon manager.

After three and a half to four years living in Pennsylvania, Lawrence's conscience caught up with her. She decided she should return and turn herself in. So in 1982, some 11 years after the Mrs. Williams homicide, Lawrence returned to Los Angeles, hired an attorney and surrendered to the police. Thereafter, she pled not guilty and suggested the now despised Mr. Williams may have committed the crime.

The case went to trial in 1983. Prior to trial, according to the probation report, Lawrence turned down a plea offer that would have resulted in a two-year prison sentence. When the jury returned a guilty verdict of first degree murder, the trial judge imposed a sentence of seven years to life—the standard statutory penalty for murders committed before 1978.

The probation report indicated Lawrence had no prior juvenile or adult record, yet recommended the court deny probation based on the seriousness of the current conviction. But the report's evaluation also included the following comments. "Defendant presented herself as an intelligent, articulate, and thoughtful woman who stands convicted of a premeditated murder which occurred 12 and a half years ago. Defendant fled the jurisdiction of the court and has now surrendered herself to the court and has been found guilty by a jury of the crime.... [¶] ... It is undoubtedly true that defendant is not now the same person she was when the crime was committed and it is not expected that defendant would be involved in another similar crime. However, given that defendant has been convicted of first degree murder, probation does not appear to be an appropriate recommendation."2

2. Lawrence's prison history and first three positive parole recommendations.

Lawrence received her initial "Psychological Evaluation" in September 1984 while awaiting the results of her appeal from the 1983 conviction. The examining psychologist concluded Lawrence was narcissistic, lacked emotional insight, repressed her emotions and avoided reality through excessive activity. The examining psychologist predicted these characteristics may lead to problems with other inmates and staff. He recommended more altruistic involvement in activities benefiting others. The report also characterized Lawrence as "explosive" and to be a "high flight risk if she loses her appeal."

Lawrence indeed lost her appeal when this division, in an unpublished opinion authored by Justice Leon Thompson, affirmed her conviction on November 14, 1984. Contrary to the prediction, however, she did not escape or attempt to escape—nor has she during the ensuing nearly 23 years of confinement.

There is a sharp contrast between that rather negative psychological evaluation in 1984 and Lawrence's next such evaluation some five years later, in October 1989. By that time she was living in Miller A. Honor house, was active as a plumber for the prison and as a tennis coach for other inmates while also having earned a BS in computer science from Laverne University. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Senteno v. State Of Cal., Case No. 08cv0694-JLS(JMA).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 8 Diciembre 2009
    ...Lee, 143 Cal.App.4th 1400, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 931, In re Scott, 133 Cal.App.4th 573, 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 905 (2005), In re Lawrence, 150 Cal.App.4th 1511, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 537 (2007), In re Roderick, 154 Cal.App.4th 242, 65 Cal.Rptr.3d 16 (2007). In December 2007, the California Supreme Court accepted......
  • Blackmore v. Powell, B185326.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 22 Mayo 2007
  • In re Roderick
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 17 Agosto 2007
    ...the Board need not detail facts in the record that support those circumstances. (See In re Lawrence (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1511, 1575-1576, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 537 (dis. opn. of Perluss, P.J.) (Lawrence) ["Neither the due process clause nor the governing statutes obligates the Governor to provid......
  • In re Cooper
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 27 Julio 2007
    ... ... This latter factor, however, is not related to the murder itself, and the attempt to cover-up a crime is common to almost all crimes. This issue was most recently addressed in In re Lawrence (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1511, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 537. The court noted that the fact a person attempts to conceal his or her guilt and avoid prosecution does not establish this person has a greater risk of reoffending. ( Id. at p. 1561, 59 Cal. Rptr.3d 537.) Unless the person is caught at the scene, it ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT