In re Palmer
Decision Date | 05 April 2019 |
Docket Number | A154269 |
Citation | 33 Cal.App.5th 1199,245 Cal.Rptr.3d 708 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | IN RE William M. PALMER II, on Habeas Corpus. |
O’Melveny & Myers, Geoffrey H. Yost, San Francisco, Melody Drummond Hansen, Menlo Park, Megan Havstad, Cara L. Gagliano, Micah Chavin, San Francisco, for Petitioner.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Phillip J. Lindsay, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Sara J. Romano, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Denise A. Yates, Deputy Attorney General
Kline, P.J.William Palmer, serving a sentence of life in prison with the possibility of parole, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus to challenge his continued incarceration for a crime committed in 1988 as cruel and unusual punishment under article 1, section 17, of the California Constitution and the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Such challenges based on the length of prison time already served are rare: Most claims of constitutionally excessive punishment challenge sentences when first imposed, looking prospectively at the time the offender will serve. Such challenges rarely succeed, as courts generally defer to determinations of the punishments appropriate to particular offenses made by legislative representatives of the People. Indeterminately sentenced inmates, however, serve terms whose length is fixed not by the Legislature but by the decisions of the Board of Parole Hearings (Board) as to whether and when the prisoner has become "suitable" for release on parole. As will be seen, the serial denials of parole Palmer experienced resulted in punishment so disproportionate to his individual culpability for the offense he committed, that it must be deemed constitutionally excessive.
BACKGROUND
Palmer’s incarceration began in 1988, when, at age 17, he pled guilty to kidnapping for robbery and was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole. He became eligible for parole in 1996 and, over the next 19 years, had 10 parole suitability hearings at which parole was denied. The present petition was filed against the backdrop of ongoing litigation challenging the denial of parole at a hearing in 2015: We initially granted Palmer’s petition for writ of habeas corpus on a ground that was subsequently rejected by the California Supreme Court in In re Butler (2018) 4 Cal.5th 728, 230 Cal.Rptr.3d 736, 413 P.3d 1178 ( Butler ), then subsequently granted the petition on the alternative ground we had originally not addressed. (In re Palmer (Sept. 13, 2018, A147177).) The Supreme Court granted review on January 16, 2019, and ordered the Reporter of Decisions not to publish our opinion. ( In re Palmer (2019) ––– Cal.5th ––––, 242 Cal.Rptr.3d 417, 433 P.3d 1.) The case remains pending in the Supreme Court.1
Palmer filed the present writ petition on May 11, 2018, shortly after the Supreme Court issued its decision in Butler and before it directed us to reconsider our initial decision on Palmer’s first petition. We issued an order to show cause on August 14, 2018, the Attorney General filed his return on September 24, and Palmer filed his traverse on October 24.
On December 6, 2018, the Board held a new parole suitability hearing as directed in our September 13, 2018 decision. This time, the panel found Palmer suitable for release on parole. We have been advised that he was recently released on parole.
DISCUSSION2
Preliminarily, Palmer’s release on parole does not render his petition moot because parolees remain in constructive state custody and are subject to constraints on their liberty. ( In re Wells (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 592, 596, 121 Cal.Rptr. 23 ; In re Sturm (1974) 11 Cal.3d 258, 265, 113 Cal.Rptr. 361, 521 P.2d 97.) As noted in Berman v. Cate (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 885, 892, 114 Cal.Rptr.3d 49, a parolee "is not free from legal restraint by the authorities" and "habeas corpus is the appropriate method for challenging the legality of the restraint." ( Id. at p. 892, 114 Cal.Rptr.3d 49 ; Pen. Code, § 1473, subd. (a).)3
Nor is Palmer’s petition untimely, as respondent maintains. In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 509, 855 P.2d 729 ( Clark ), which set forth the procedural bars respondent relies upon, ( Gomez v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 293, 308–309, 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 808, 278 P.3d 1168.) But ( Gomez , at p. 309, 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 808, 278 P.3d 1168.)
The concerns underlying the timeliness requirement certainly are not at issue in a habeas petition raising a claim of constitutionally excessive punishment based on the length of time the inmate has already spent in prison . As the In re Burdan court noted in the context of a challenge to a decision denying parole, "[f]inality of the conviction ... is not an issue," and "[t]he only one potentially prejudiced by a delay ... is the inmate himself," for whom delay means remaining in prison for a longer time. ( In re Burdan, supra, 169 Cal.App.4th at p. 31, 86 Cal.Rptr.3d 549 ; see, People v. Miller (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 873, 877, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 193 [ ].) We agree with Palmer’s assertion that it would be absurd and unjust to bar "an inmate’s challenge to his continued incarceration as unconstitutionally excessive cruel and unusual punishment" on the basis that it was brought "too late into his confinement. "4 Similarly, it is not reasonable to view the present petition as a successive, "piecemeal" presentation of a claim that was or should have been presented sooner. ( Clark, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 774, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 509, 855 P.2d 729.) Palmer has never before argued that his term of confinement had become constitutionally excessive, and to say he is barred from doing so now because he could have done so before would be both illogical and unfair.
When a defendant challenges the imposition of a sentence as constitutionally excessive punishment, ( People v. Martinez (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 489, 494, 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 517.)
Palmer presents a different question, as he challenges not the indeterminate life term to which he was sentenced but the actual term of years he was required to serve. The punishment for Palmer’s offense, kidnapping for robbery, is not a legislatively specified number of years; it is simply "imprisonment in the state prison for life with the possibility of parole."5 (§ 209.) The number of years an inmate actually serves under such a sentence is determined not by the Legislature but by the Board’s decision whether to grant or deny release on parole. For indeterminately sentenced life prisoners, the Legislative direction is only that the Board "shall normally grant parole" unless "consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration for this individual." (§ 3041, subds. (a)(2) & (b)(1).) The Board decides whether to grant release on parole based on its determination of the prisoner’s "suitability" for release (§§ 3041, 3041.5), a determination that focuses on the inmate’s current dangerousness, and is largely governed by postconviction conduct and personal development. ( In re Stoneroad (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 596, 617, 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 639.) The Board does not consider whether denial of an application for parole may result in constitutionally excessive punishment.
Our Supreme Court has recognized, however, that ( In re Dannenberg (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1061, 1096, 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 417, 104 P.3d 783 ( Dannenberg ).) The proportionality of a sentence turns entirely on the culpability of the offender as measured by "circumstances existing at the time of the offense ." ( Rodriguez, supra, 14 Cal.3d at p. 652, 122 Cal.Rptr. 552, 537 P.2d 384, italics added.) Where an inmate’s sentence is disproportionate...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Corpus
...adjudicate the habeas petition, the Board found him suitable for parole and ordered him released. ( In re Palmer (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 1199, 1202–1203, 245 Cal.Rptr.3d 708 ( Palmer ).) The Court of Appeal subsequently agreed with Palmer that his now-completed term of imprisonment had become......
-
In re Palmer
...adjudicate the habeas petition, the Board found him suitable for parole and ordered him released. ( In re Palmer (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 1199, 1202–1203, 245 Cal.Rptr.3d 708 ( Palmer ).) The Court of Appeal subsequently agreed with Palmer that his now-completed term of imprisonment had become......
-
In re Williams
...the punishment for more serious offenses, or (3) punishment for similar offenses in other jurisdictions.’ [Citation.]" ( In re Palmer (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 1199, 1207, review granted July 31, 2019, S256149; see also People v. Mendez (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 47, 64-65, 114 Cal.Rptr.3d 870.)Pet......
-
People v. Cadena
...possibility of parole for a minor’s commission of kidnapping for robbery is unconstitutionally disproportionate. (In re Palmer (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 1199, 245 Cal.Rptr.3d 708, review granted July 31, 2019, S256149.)6 The petitioner had an I.Q. of 68 and was "functionally illiterate and unsk......
-
Appeals and Writs
...Regulations, tit. 10, § 2076.6. People v. Martinez, supra, 59 Cal.App.5th at 290.7. People v. Martinez, S267138.8. In re Palmer (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 1199, 1202.9. In re Palmer (2020) 10 Cal.5th 959, 980.10. Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.406(a)(1), 8.60(d), 8.104(b); Estate of Hanley (1943) ......