In Re Michael B. Prather On Habeas Corpus.In Re Miguel Molina On Habeas Corpus.

Citation50 Cal.4th 238,234 P.3d 541,112 Cal.Rptr.3d 291
Decision Date29 July 2010
Docket NumberNo. S172903,S173260.,S172903
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (California)
PartiesIn re Michael B. PRATHER on Habeas Corpus.In re Miguel Molina on Habeas Corpus.

50 Cal.4th 238
234 P.3d 541
112 Cal.Rptr.3d 291

In re Michael B. PRATHER on Habeas Corpus.
In re Miguel Molina on Habeas Corpus.

Nos. S172903, S173260.

Supreme Court of California

July 29, 2010.


234 P.3d 542

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

234 P.3d 543

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Rich Pfeiffer, Santa Ana, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Petitioner Michael Prather.

Michael Satris, Bolinas, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Petitioner Miguel Molina.

Munger, Tolles & Olson, Leo Goldbard, Los Angeles; Cuauhtemoc Ortega; Alan L. Schlosser, San Francisco; Peter Eliasberg, Los Angeles; and David Blair-Loy, San Francisco, for ACLU of Northern California, ACLU of Southern California and ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner Miguel Molina.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Manual M. Medeiros, State Solicitor General, Donald E. de Nicola, Deputy State Solicitor General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer A. Neill, Heather Bushman, Anya M. Binsacca, Gregory J. Marcot and Amanda Lloyd, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent Warden Ben Curry.

GEORGE, C.J.
234 P.3d 544

We granted review in these two cases to determine the proper scope of an order directed to the Board of Parole Hearings (the Board) when a reviewing court concludes that a decision to deny parole by the Board is not supported by “some evidence” that a prisoner remains a current threat to public safety. After the completion of briefing, we consolidated these matters for purposes of oral argument and decision.

In In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181, 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 169, 190 P.3d 535 ( Lawrence ) and In re Shaputis (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1241, 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 213, 190 P.3d 573 ( Shaputis ), we concluded that the standard governing judicial review of parole decisions made either by the Board or by the Governor is whether “some evidence” supports the determination that a prisoner remains currently dangerous. Lawrence and Shaputis each concerned the Governor's reversal of action taken by the Board, and we did not address the question of the remedy appropriate in the event the reviewing court determines the Board abused its discretion. Subsequent to our decisions in these two cases, however, a conflict emerged among the appellate courts as to precisely what action a reviewing court may direct the Board to take after that court has granted the prisoner's petition for writ of habeas corpus. As set forth below, although some courts have ordered the Board simply to hold a new suitability hearing “in accordance with due process,” other courts have directed the Board to find the prisoner suitable for parole unless new evidence-that is, evidence that has emerged subsequent to the parole-suitability hearing under review-supports a determination that the prisoner remains currently dangerous.

We conclude that a decision granting habeas corpus relief in these circumstances generally should direct the Board to conduct a new parole-suitability hearing in accordance with due process of law and consistent with the decision of the court, and should not place improper limitations on the type of evidence the Board is statutorily obligated to consider. Accordingly, we conclude that the appellate courts in the two cases now before us improperly restricted the Board's exercise of its discretion by directing that only certain evidence be considered at the parole suitability hearing of petitioner Michael B. Prather, and by ordering the release of petitioner Miguel Molina without further proceedings. Both appellate decisions erroneously failed to recognize the Board's statutory obligation to consider the full record in making a parole-suitability determination.

I.

We consider the limited procedural question of the proper scope of the decision of a reviewing court that concludes the Board has abused its discretion in denying a prisoner a parole date. Because we granted review to consider this limited issue only, the correctness of each of the appellate court decisions concluding that petitioners are suitable for parole is not before us, and the circumstances of the commitment offenses-and the import of those circumstances in deciding the question of suitability for parole-are not germane to our inquiry. Accordingly, we discuss the respective commitment offenses

234 P.3d 545
and postincarceration conduct of each petitioner in truncated form, and only as relevant to the procedural question before us.
A In re Prather

In 1982, Prather and two codefendants encountered the victims Elroy Ruiz and Randolph William Carrier in a park where the victims had driven to purchase marijuana.1 Prather and his codefendants attempted unsuccessfully to take Ruiz's wallet. When Ruiz began to drive away, his car stalled. After someone said, “shoot him, shoot him,” Prather shot Ruiz. Prather and his codefendants then began beating Carrier, who was seated in the passenger seat. They pulled Carrier from the car and took his wallet. Carrier was able to free himself and fled in the automobile. Ruiz died from his gunshot wounds. Prather pleaded guilty to first degree murder (§ 187), robbery (§ 211), and attempted robbery (§§ 664/211), and admitted an enhancement for personal use of a firearm (§§ 12022.5, 1203.06, subd. (a)(1)). The Los Angeles County Superior Court sentenced Prather to a term of imprisonment of 25 years to life, consecutive to a two-year determinate term on the enhancement.

Prather reached his minimum eligible parole date on October 20, 2000. He was found suitable for parole by a Board panel in 2005 and 2006, but both of these determinations were reversed by the Governor. On November 28, 2007, the Board found Prather unsuitable for parole and scheduled a new hearing to be conducted in one year.2 The 2007 parole hearing is the subject of our present review.

Prather's prearrest record reflects that he struggled with substance abuse, was involved with gangs, and had a substantial criminal record, including convictions for carrying a concealed weapon, disorderly conduct while under the influence of drugs and alcohol, burglary, and assault with a deadly weapon. He was on probation at the time of the commitment offense. During his incarceration, Prather was cited for six serious rules-violations, the most recent for possession of marijuana in 1994. He also has received 13 custodial counseling citations for minor misconduct-the most recent in 2002 for refusal to be housed in the general population. Prather has participated extensively in educational, self-help, and vocational programs.

At the 2007 parole hearing, Prather discussed the commitment offense and asserted that although he willingly joined his codefendants in robbing the victims, he was not the actual shooter. He admitted having assaulted Carrier and taking his wallet after the shooting. He stated he pleaded guilty to first degree murder, and admitted being the shooter, because he had received threats from his codefendants. Prather told the Board, however, that even though he was not the shooter, he considered himself equally responsible for Ruiz's death because he participated in the offense.

The 2007 Board panel found Prather unsuitable for parole. Noting it was not bound by the findings of previous panels, the panel relied upon the egregious nature of the commitment offense, emphasizing that multiple victims were attacked. The panel also considered a mental health evaluation prepared for Prather's 2005 hearing, as well as Prather's criminal history and disciplinary record. The panel expressed concern that the 2005 mental health evaluation was not completely supportive of release, despite rendering a “ moderately low risk” assessment for future violence, and noted its preference for receiving a “low risk” assessment before it would find Prather suitable for parole. The panel requested a new mental health evaluation for the next parole hearing. Finally, the panel

234 P.3d 546
noted that the local prosecutor's office and the local police department opposed parole.

After unsuccessfully seeking habeas corpus relief in the superior court, Prather filed a habeas corpus petition in the Court of Appeal. After issuing an order to show cause, the appellate court in a split decision rendered an opinion granting Prather habeas corpus relief. The two justices in the majority concluded there was no evidence in the record to support the Board's finding of unsuitability, because the Board had found Prather suitable for parole in 2006 and there was no new evidence in the record suggesting that he is currently dangerous. The Court of Appeal, noting that the 2007 Board panel relied upon the 2005 mental health evaluation, which also had been considered by the 2006 panel, concluded that the 2007 panel's view of this evaluation “in a different fashion” did not provide “some evidence” of current dangerousness.

Notably, the Court of Appeal did not simply direct the Board to conduct a new hearing, but instead directed the Board “to find Mr. Prather suitable for parole unless, within 30 days of the finality of this decision, the Board holds a hearing and determines that new and different evidence of Mr. Prather's conduct in prison subsequent to his 2007 parole hearing supports a determination that he currently poses an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released on parole.” 3

B In re Molina

In 1984, petitioner Molina shot and killed the victim Ruben Morales.4 The murder occurred on a farm in Arroyo Grande, where both men worked. The record reflects that the two men had had numerous altercations prior to the murder-including an incident in which the victim threatened Molina with a knife-and that Molina had purchased a rifle one week before the commitment offense. An eyewitness reported that Molina shot Morales as Morales watched television in a room at a bunkhouse. The pathologist later determined Morales had been shot...

To continue reading

Request your trial
314 cases
  • State Farm Gen. Ins. Co. v. Lara
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 29 Octubre 2021
    ...its discretion limited on remand or even eliminated entirely by a reviewing court’ "], citing In re Prather (2010) 50 Cal.4th 238, 259, 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 291, 234 P.3d 541 (conc. opn. of Moreno, J.); cf. People v. Coelho (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 861, 889, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 729 ["reviewing courts h......
  • In re Riley
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 22 Mayo 2014
  • In re Macias
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 2 Marzo 2011
    ...In In re Rico (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 659, 89 Cal.Rptr.3d 866 ( Rico) (abrogated on other grounds in *742 In re Prather (2010) 50 Cal.4th 238, 252-253, 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 291, 234 P.3d 541), the court rejected a claim a lack of insight could be inferred from Rico's failure to discuss his crime,......
  • People v. Davis
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 26 Febrero 2015
    ...to society if released from prison.” (Cal. Code. Regs., tit. 15, § 2402, subd. (a) ; accord, e.g., In re Prather (2010) 50 Cal.4th 238, 249–250, 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 291, 234 P.3d 541 ; In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181, 1201–1202, 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 169, 190 P.3d 535.) And in grappling with tha......
  • 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