McCarns v. Dexter, No. EDCV 05-1047-SGL(RC).

CourtUnited States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
Writing for the CourtStephen G. Larson
Citation534 F.Supp.2d 1138
Decision Date28 January 2008
Docket NumberNo. EDCV 05-1047-SGL(RC).
PartiesCharles McCARNS, aka Charles Francis McCarns III, aka Charles Francis McCarnes III, Petitioner, v. Debra DEXTER,<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> Respondent.
534 F.Supp.2d 1138
Charles McCARNS, aka Charles Francis McCarns III, aka Charles Francis McCarnes III, Petitioner,
v.
Debra DEXTER,1 Respondent.
No. EDCV 05-1047-SGL(RC).
United States District Court, C.D. California.
January 28, 2008.

Page 1139

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 1140

Roger S. Hanson, Roger S. Hanson Law Offices, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner.

J. Conrad Schroeder, Office of the Attorney General of California, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

STEPHEN G. LARSON, District Judge.


Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition and other papers along with the attached Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Rosalyn M. Chapman, and has made a de novo determination.

IT IS ORDERED that (1) the Report and Recommendation is approved and adopted; (2) the Report and Recommendation is adopted as the findings of fact and conclusions of law herein; (3) the Court determines that the Governor's reversal of the Board's decision to grant parole to petitioner is not supported by "some evidence" in the record, and the Court, thus, finds petitioner was denied due process of the law; (4) Ground One is denied on the merits; and (5) Judgment shall be entered granting the petition for writ of habeas corpus, and reinstating the parole date set by the Board of Prison Terms.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve copies of this Order, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and Judgment by the United States mail on the parties.

JUDGMENT

Pursuant to the Order of the Court adopting the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge Rosalyn M. Chapman,

Page 1141

IT IS ADJUDGED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted, and the parole date set by the Board of Prison Terms shall be reinstated.

---------------

Notes:

1. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 25(d)(1), Debra Dexter, current Warden of Ironwood State Prison, is substituted as the respondent in this action.

---------------

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ROSALYN CHAPMAN, United States Magistrate Judge.

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Stephen G. Larson, United States District Judge, by Magistrate Judge Rosalyn M. Chapman, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and General. Order 05-07, of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

BACKGROUND
I

On July 27, 1984, in Riverside County Superior Court case no. CR21509, a jury convicted petitioner Charles McCarnes, aka Charles Francis McCarnes III, aka Charles Francis McCarnes III, of two counts of second degree murder in violation of California Penal Code ("P.C.") § 187(a) (counts 1 & 2), two counts of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence in violation of P.C. § 192.3(1) (counts 3 & 4), one count of driving under the influence with bodily injury in violation of California Vehicle Code ("Veh. C.") § 23153(a) (count 5), one count of driving under the influence with .10% alcohol and bodily injury in violation of Veh. C. § 23158(b) (count 6) and one count of hit and run resulting in death in violation of Veh. C. §.20001 (count 7). Lodgment, Exhs. 1-2; People v. McCarnes, 179 Cal. App.3d 525, 527, 224 Cal.Rptr. 846 (1986). The petitioner had previously pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of driving while his license was, suspended or revoked for driving under the influence in violation of Veh. C. § 14601.2(a) (count 8), and he had admitted four previous convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol. Ibid. On October 2, 1984, petitioner was sentenced to two concurrent terms of 15 years to life plus a consecutive determinate term of four years and 8 months. Lodgment, Exh. 1; McCarnes, 179 Cal. App.3d at 527, 224 Cal.Rptr. 846.

The petitioner appealed his convictions and sentence to the California Court of Appeal, which affirmed the judgment in a published opinion filed March 31, 1986. McCarnes, 179 Cal.App.3d at 525-36, 224 Cal.Rptr. 846. The petitioner then filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court, which denied the petition on July 31, 1986.

II

The California Court of Appeal made the following factual findings in affirming petitioner's convictions and sentence:

About two o'clock on a summer Saturday afternoon [in 1983], [petitioner] was driving his Chevrolet west on Allesandro Boulevard just west of its intersection with Moreno Beach Boulevard, east of Riverside. His blood alcohol level was about .27 percent.FN1 He tried to pass a Datsun station wagon at a speed of "65-plus."FN2 During the passing maneuver, [petitioner] drove into the eastbound lane of Allesandro (a two-lane highway) and collided head-on with a VW station wagon. There were six people in the VW: Frank Ferreira and his wife Jacqueline; their baby daughter Jennifer, who was almost 2; their neice [sic] Lisa; their teenage nephew Patrick, and Frank's 15-year-old sister Elizabeth.

FN1. A blood sample taken from [petitioner] about 2 hours later revealed an alcohol level of .23 percent. A criminologist testified that the average burn-off rate was about .02

Page 1142

an hour, and that the .23 figure was equivalent to .27 2 hours earlier.

FN2. This estimate of [petitioner's] speed was given at trial by a passenger in the Datsun.

After the collision, [petitioner] walked over to the vicinity of the VW. A bystander was giving artificial respiration to the baby, who, according to a witness, was missing "a big chunk of her head." [Petitioner] leaned over, said "`Don't die, baby, don't die" and walked away. A deputy sheriff arrived on the scene and was told that [petitioner] had left the scene. The sheriff drove after [petitioner]. When the sheriff approached him, [petitioner] ran into a field. The sheriff ran after him and overtook him. [Petitioner] told the sheriff that he had tried "to do CPR on the baby." [¶] A CHP officer administered a field sobriety test to [petitioner] within an hour of the collision. The officer testified at trial that in his opinion [petitioner] was "extremely intoxicated." The criminalist (see fn. 1, supra) testified that a person had to be a "pretty experienced drinker" to reach a level of .27 percent, and that many persons would become unconscious with a blood alcohol level of less than .30 percent. [¶] As a result of injuries received in the collision, Frank Ferreira and his baby daughter died; Frank's wife Jacqueline had four broken ribs; their nephew Patrick had two broken arms, a broken femur and a broken pelvic bone; their neice [sic] Lisa had torn ligaments in her knee, and Frank's sister Elizabeth had a broken nose and front teeth knocked out.

McCarnes, 179 Cal.App.3d at 527-28, 224 Cal.Rptr. 846.

III

Between 1995 and 2003, the California Board of Prison Terms ("Board") found petitioner unsuitable for parole on seven occasions.2 Lodgment, Exh. 3. On October 19, 2004, at petitioner's eighth parole suitability hearing, a panel of the Board found petitioner suitable for parole. Lodgment, Exh. 4. In reaching its conclusion, the Board stated:

[T]he Panel reviewed all of the information received from the public and relied on the following circumstances in concluding that you are suitable for parole and would not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society or a threat to public safety if released from prison. The things that we considered in coming to this decision was [sic][1][you] ha[ve] no juvenile record of assaulting others. [2] ... [F]or the most part [you] do[ ] seem to have a very stable social history and reasonably stable relationships with others. [3][You] ha[ve] certainly participated in programs while [you have] been incarcerated that will enhance [your] ability to function within the law upon release. And those would include selfhelp programs such as Impact. But of most importance, [your] participation in substance abuse programming since 1989.[4][You] ha[ve] completed two vocational programs[:] electronic data processing and landscaping[,] and ha[ve] also made an effort to keep up [your] knowledge regarding air conditioning refrigeration that [you] had started to educate [your]self on prior to this commitment offense. [5][You] lack[ ] a significant criminal history, although I do want to note that once again, that we did consider the fact that [you] certainly had a history of driving ... while intoxicated

Page 1143

and that in this particular case, that would be significant. So [it is] not ... that [you] lack[ ] a significant criminal history.... It's just that it seems to all fall within a certain period of time. [6][You] certainly ha[ve], we believe, a greater understanding of the commitment offense and ha[ve] matured and that ... should — and certainly the psychiatric evaluations agree [—] reduce [your] probability of recidivism. [7][You] do[ ] have ... good and realistic parole plans. [You] ha[ve] several job offers. [You] ha[ve] lots of family support. [You have] clearly maintained close family ties while [you have] been in prison [8] [You have] had positive institutional behavior. [You have] had no [CDC] 115's at all since [you have] been incarcerated. [9] And I do believe that [you] ha[ve] an understanding of what the impact of this crime was and that [you are] remorseful. [10] The psychiatric evaluation dated June of 2003, authored by Doctor Payne is very supportive of release. It states that if released to the community, Mr. — I'm sorry. If released to the community, [you] would not present a significant risk to the public. Says that the likelihood of relapse is virtually nil, as past risk factors are negligible at the present time. [You] do[ ] see that [you were] diluted [sic] in [your] way of thinking in the past, as is the case of an alcoholic. He also. says [you] ha[ve] good insight into [your] past and current behavior and ha[ve] been abstinent from alcohol. [You have] developed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Senteno v. State Of Cal., Case No. 08cv0694-JLS(JMA).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • December 8, 2009
    ...court clearly erred in its application of controlling federal law’ ” or reached a result contrary to that authority. McCarns v. Dexter, 534 F.Supp.2d 1138, 1148 (C.D.Cal.2008), quoting Delgado v. Lewis, 223 F.3d 976, 982 (9th Cir.2000).2. Due Process In Parole Contexta. California Prisoners......
  • Murr v. Marshall, No. EDCV 04-1380-TJH (MAN).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • November 25, 2009
    ...official duties." United States v. Chemical Foundation, 272 U.S. 1, 14-15, 47 S.Ct. 1, 6, 71 L.Ed. 131 (1926); see McCarns v. Dexter, 534 F.Supp.2d 1138, 1155 (C.D.Cal.2008) (rejecting inmate's due process claim that the Governor reversed Board's parole grant without personally reviewing in......
  • Martinez v. Marshall, Case No. CV 06-7131-DDP (RC).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • June 18, 2010
    ...established federal law, and petitioner “ ‘is therefore entitled to the release date ordered by the Board.’ ” 16 McCarns v. Dexter, 534 F.Supp.2d 1138, 1154-55 (C.D.Cal.2008) (citations omitted).713 F.Supp.2d 1007 VII “[H]abeas corpus is, at its core, an equitable remedy.” Schlup v. Delo, 5......
  • In re Calderon, No. A125831.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • October 13, 2010
    ...(2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1299, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 872; Styre v. Adams (E.D.Cal.2009) 635 F.Supp.2d 1166; McCarns v. Dexter (C.D.Cal.2008) 534 F.Supp.2d 1138), this case provides reason to wonder whether the Governor's decision is not the product of "an individualized consideration of all relevan......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Senteno v. State Of Cal., Case No. 08cv0694-JLS(JMA).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • December 8, 2009
    ...court clearly erred in its application of controlling federal law’ ” or reached a result contrary to that authority. McCarns v. Dexter, 534 F.Supp.2d 1138, 1148 (C.D.Cal.2008), quoting Delgado v. Lewis, 223 F.3d 976, 982 (9th Cir.2000).2. Due Process In Parole Contexta. California Prisoners......
  • Murr v. Marshall, No. EDCV 04-1380-TJH (MAN).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • November 25, 2009
    ...official duties." United States v. Chemical Foundation, 272 U.S. 1, 14-15, 47 S.Ct. 1, 6, 71 L.Ed. 131 (1926); see McCarns v. Dexter, 534 F.Supp.2d 1138, 1155 (C.D.Cal.2008) (rejecting inmate's due process claim that the Governor reversed Board's parole grant without personally reviewing in......
  • Martinez v. Marshall, Case No. CV 06-7131-DDP (RC).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • June 18, 2010
    ...established federal law, and petitioner “ ‘is therefore entitled to the release date ordered by the Board.’ ” 16 McCarns v. Dexter, 534 F.Supp.2d 1138, 1154-55 (C.D.Cal.2008) (citations omitted).713 F.Supp.2d 1007 VII “[H]abeas corpus is, at its core, an equitable remedy.” Schlup v. Delo, 5......
  • In re Calderon, No. A125831.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • October 13, 2010
    ...(2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1299, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 872; Styre v. Adams (E.D.Cal.2009) 635 F.Supp.2d 1166; McCarns v. Dexter (C.D.Cal.2008) 534 F.Supp.2d 1138), this case provides reason to wonder whether the Governor's decision is not the product of "an individualized consideration of all relevan......
  • 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