Ruvalcaba v. Curry, No. 3:2008cv02483 - Document 9 (N.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Jose Ruvalcaba. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 4/8/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(be, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/12/2010)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Ruvalcaba v. Curry Doc. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE RUVALCABA, Petitioner, 12 vs. 13 14 BEN CURRY, Warden, 15 Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. C 08-2483 CRB (PR) ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at the Correctional Training 18 19 Facility in Soledad, California, has filed a pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas 20 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the California Board of Parole 21 Hearings’ (“BPH”) May 9, 2007 decision to deny him parole on the ground that 22 the decision does not comport with due process. Doc. #1. Per order filed on July 23 22, 2008, the Court found that the Petition, when liberally construed, appeared to 24 state a cognizable claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and ordered Respondent to show 25 cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. Doc. #5. Respondent 26 has filed and Answer and Petitioner has filed a Traverse. Doc. ## 6 & 7. 27 // 28 // Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 BACKGROUND A. The Commitment Offense On May 5, 1990, Petitioner was convicted of attempted murder in Contra 4 Costa County Superior Court and sentenced to an indeterminate term of seven- 5 years-to-life in state prison. At his May 9, 2007 parole suitability hearing, BPH 6 read the following summary of Petitioner’s commitment offense, as derived from 7 the first two pages of a November 2005 counselor’s report. 8 9 In Spring of 1990, . . . [Petitioner] and victim June Hidalgo began a roman[tic] relationship. During the following two or three months, the two spent a great deal of time together, evenings and weekends. 10 11 12 13 During this time, the two became intimate physically and in late April, [Petitioner] asked the victim to marry him. Approximately two weeks later, the victim told [Petitioner] that she no longer wanted to go out with him. [Petitioner] became extremely upset, crying, locking himself in his bedroom all night. 14 15 16 The following day, May 4th , 1990, [Petitioner] came out of his room to help his brother with a stalled vehicle. This was when [Petitioner] acquired the handgun used in the attempted homicide, locating the gun in his uncle’s toolbox. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 After starting and stalling the vehicle, [Petitioner] set out to the victim’s home to contact the victim’s grandmother. He then went to a mutual friend’s home, Corey, who stated that he and . . . other friends at the apartment were waiting for [the victim] to arrive. While there, the victim called and after speaking to her friends, [Petitioner] got on the telephone and asked her why she was breaking up with him. The victim told him that she no longer wanted to speak with him and hung up on him. [Petitioner] began crying and told his friends “I’m going to get that bitch” and “Nice knowing you guys.” He then followed Stacey Cushman, one of their mutual friends from the apartment, to Mount Diablo High School tennis courts, . . . where she and [the victim] had earlier agreed to meet. 27 28 2 1 Upon arrival of the victim at the parking lot of the high school on a motorcycle driven by Ron Adams, [Petitioner] drove up in his car, exited the vehicle with the gun in his hand, and the victim cried out, “Jose, no” . . . and bent down, cowering and . . . putting . . . her hands protectively over her head. 2 3 4 [Petitioner] pulled the trigger, but no bullet came out. Then he fired three more times, hitting the victim through her hands, entering the rear of her head. She collapsed and [Petitioner] then shot himself in the head as well. 5 6 7 Both were transported to John Muir Trauma Center. The victim was in a coma for [ten] days, remained hospitalized for two months. As a result of the bullet wound to her head, June Hidalgo sustained permanent serious visual impairment. She has no direct vision and . . . can no longer see shapes in detail, nor can she read. 8 9 10 11 [Petitioner] sustained a head wound that affected his speech, necessitating extensive speech therapy. [Petitioner] was subsequently convicted by a jury for attempted murder on 11/25/91. 12 13 14 Doc. #6-1 at 52-54. 15 B. The May 9, 2007 Parole Suitability Hearing and Petitioner’s State Court Challenge to BPH’s Decision to Deny Him Parole 16 On May 9, 2007, Petitioner appeared before BPH for his fifth parole 17 suitability hearing. Doc. #6-1 at 70. At that hearing, BPH again found Petitioner 18 was not suitable for parole and would pose an unreasonable risk to society or 19 threat to public safety if released from prison. Doc. #6-2 at 60-61. In denying 20 Petitioner parole, BPH relied on the circumstances of the commitment offense, 21 which it noted “was carried out in an especially cruel manner” and 22 “demonstrate[d] disregard for human suffering.” Id. at 61-62. BPH also cited the 23 district attorney’s opposition to Petitioner’s release, as well as concern over what 24 it termed a “little gap” in Petitioner’s “understanding of the critical elements that 25 led to the life crime.” Id. at 66, 68 & 70. Petitioner’s minimum eligible parole 26 date was October 30, 1998. Doc. #6-1 at 3 & 32. 27 28 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 After BPH recited the facts of Petitioner’s commitment offense, he was asked to explain his actions. Petitioner stated: Well, first of all, sir, I’m so ashamed of what I did back in those days, you know. I know that now the way I feel about life is just [no] way to think about the pain. I know I remember back in those days, back in that moment I had so many problems in my house and I was getting legalized and all those things ha[d] got into my mind and at that moment, I didn’t care for life and she got me upset and problems that were in my house. All those things made me lose my head. 8 9 10 11 12 13 I know I can’t believe I did it, you know? It’s so hard for me to even think that I’d go and hurt a person at that time . . . I was still solely immature. Now that I’m totally mature, I think – Now I think that, God, it was so – it was just – Think about it, it just makes me drop down and get – I know she doesn’t deserve no [sic] pain of any kind, . . . it’s just so difficult for me to even express myself in front of you, sir, and to a whole community, to a whole world. 14 15 16 17 18 19 Doc. #6-1 at 54-55. In announcing its decision denying Petitioner parole, BPH acknowledged Petitioner’s remorse, noting: [W]e believe there’s no question in our mind that you feel horribly sorry for the events that occurred, . . . you’ve come to grips with this horrible crime . . . that you did. That’s at least something in terms of you. 20 21 22 Your family has suffered . . . and her family has certainly suffered. Your friends that were surrounding this have all suffered and I think you have a wonderful grasp on all that. 23 Doc. #6-2 at 60. Later in the decision, BPH repeated, “[t]here’s no question that 24 you’ve come to grips with the crime.” Immediately following this statement, 25 however, BPH noted: 26 There is a little gap there what we would like you to work on for this next year that we believe is 27 28 4 1 something . . . it would do you well and make us, the Parole Board, feel a little better about your ability to handle future situations that may come up, whether they be romantically based or . . . something based at work. We want to feel absolutely sure that you’re going to handle these things in an adult, mature way and . . . while we recognize you said over and over and over it would never happen again, I’m sure prior to this you never thought this would happen. So we want to make absolutely sure that you’re going to . . . have all the tools at your disposal to get through some other circumstances . . . that I will guarantee you inevitably will happen in your life, that will not be comfortable and be difficult to deal with for anybody. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Id. at 68-69. 10 BPH acknowledged the “extensive amount of work with regard to 11 [Petitioner’s] parole plans” noting he had two “well sought after vocations” and 12 that his employment plans “seem to be viable.” Doc. #6-2 at 67. During the 13 evidentiary portion of the hearing, BPH noted the numerous letters of support 14 Petitioner received from family members and friends, which offered Petitioner 15 employment, financial support and a place to live. See Doc. #6-2 at 15-25. 16 In terms of his behavior prior to the commitment offense, BPH noted that 17 Petitioner had “virtually no criminal record. . . . no juvenile record, nor adult 18 record. So there is no escalation of any pattern. This seemed to be some form of 19 isolated event . . . .” Doc. #6-2 at 64. Regarding his behavior in prison, BPH 20 noted that Petitioner had “done well while in prison” and that he had accrued 21 only one serious rules violation eleven years prior. Id. at 65. BPH later learned 22 that this was due to Petitioner’s participation in a prison work stoppage. Id. at 80. 23 Finally, during the evidentiary portion of the hearing, BPH cited 24 extensively to Petitioner’s most recent psychological evaluation. See Doc. #6-1 25 at 81-83; Doc. #6-2 at 2-4. That evaluation, in relevant part, noted: 26 [Petitioner] related during the interview in an open sincere and earnest manner. His mental status was 27 28 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 within normal limits. He was alert and well oriented. His thinking was rational, logical and coherent. His speech was normal, fluent and goal oriented. English is his second language. However, he communicates quite well in English. He actually has achieved his GED, which is remarkable. He stated that sometimes under stress he has difficulty expressing himself in English. Sometimes in the BPH hearing this occurs to him. However, under normal conditions, he communicates very well. His eye contact was good. His affect was appropriate. There was no evidence of anxiety or of depression. His memory was intact. His judgment was good. His insight and selfawareness were excellent. 8 9 10 11 12 13 This man has no alcohol or drug issues at all. This is not an issue in this case. Before coming to prison, he was experienced as an automobile mechanic. He has participated for three years at [Deuel Vocational Institution] in auto mechanics, earning a certificate of completion. In addition, he has spent three years working in autobody. He has excellent skills in this field. He has job offers in Mexico, where he plans to go as a mechanic. 14 15 See Doc. #1-2 at 25. The psychologist further observed Petitioner as having no 16 mental disorder and no personality disorder. Id. 17 In reviewing Petitioner’s life crime, the psychologist noted: 18 [Petitioner] accepts full responsibility for the commitment offense. He accepts the written version of the commitment offense. He has reviewed this offense at length with Dr. Sexton in the 10/11/04 report. In addition, he has also reviewed the dynamics associated with this offense with this writer. Since this information has been reviewed at length, it will only be summarized at this point. At the time [of the commitment offense, Petitioner] was under a great deal of emotional stress. Family dynamics outlined in the previous report resulted in his desire to support his family, but at the same time to leave his family and become independent. At the time, the family dynamics were overwhelming to him, and he felt quite trapped. He had put all of his hopes, dreams and expectations into the relationship with the victim. He was planning on marriage. At the same time, he was under pressure at work, 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 1 because they demanded papers that he had obtained legal residency or he would lose his job. In the midst of all this stress, the victim, his fiancée broke off his relationship abruptly without any explanations. The result was that he lost complete control, and he was overcome with feelings of hurt, rejection, anger and jealousy, as well as confusion. 2 3 4 [Petitioner] expresses deep feelings of sorrow and remorse about his actions at that time. He was 21 years of age, and he was totally overwhelmed by his situation. At the time he felt that he had nothing more for which to live. As a result, he also attempted suicide. Looking back at it now as a mature adult at the age of 37, he realizes how bad his choices were. He expresses deep feelings of sorrow, shame and remorse at the injury he caused to his fiancée. His feelings of remorse appear to be quite sincere and genuine. 5 6 7 8 9 10 [Petitioner] has explored the commitment offense and the underlining [sic] causes at length. I agree with Dr. Sexton’s assessment that his explanation of the causes related to this offense is outstanding. He totally understands what motivated him to become involved in this offense at the time. He continues to be remorseful and bothered by this action. He does not need to participate in any further counseling, therapy or self-help groups in order to understand himself and his actions better at that time. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Doc. #1-2 at 25-26; see also id. at 28-33 (October 11, 2004 report of Dr. Sexton). In his assessment of Petitioner’s dangerousness, the psychologist observed: In considering potential for dangerous behavior when released to the community . . . [the results of Petitioner’s psychological testing] means that if 100 men were released on parole, he would do better on parole than 99 of them. This is an extremely low risk level. As a result, he poses no more risk to society than the average citizen in the community. In fact, based upon his selfunderstanding, life experiences, growth and maturity over the years, he probably poses less risk to society than the average citizen in the community. Doc. #1-2 at 26. 27 28 7 1 The psychologist’s clinical conclusion reads as follows: 2 There are no mental or emotional problems in this case that would interfere with routine parole planning. [Petitioner] has an immigration hold, and he plans to return to Mexico upon his release. He has a great deal of family support in Mexico. In addition to offers of residence, he also has job offers. He is an experienced mechanic, and his skills are highly desirable in the community. Employment will not be a problem in this case. The prognosis for successful adjustment in the community is very excellent. 3 4 5 6 7 8 Doc. #1-2 at 26. 9 Petitioner challenged BPH’s May 9, 2007 decision in the California 10 Supreme Court, which summarily denied relief on March 19, 2008. Doc. #6-3 at 11 2. On May 15, 2008, Petitioner filed the instant Petition for a Writ of Habeas 12 Corpus. 13 14 LEGAL STANDARD The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), 15 codified under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, provides “the exclusive vehicle for a habeas 16 petition by a state prisoner in custody pursuant to a state court judgment, even 17 when the petitioner is not challenging his underlying state court conviction.” 18 White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1009-10 (9th Cir. 2004). Under AEDPA, this 19 Court may entertain a petition for habeas relief on behalf of a California state 20 inmate “only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution 21 or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 22 The writ may not be granted unless the state court’s adjudication of any 23 claim on the merits: “(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved 24 an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by 25 the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was 26 based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence 27 28 8 1 presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Under this 2 deferential standard, federal habeas relief will not be granted “simply because 3 [this] [C]ourt concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court 4 decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly. 5 Rather, that application must also be unreasonable.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 6 U.S. 362, 411 (2000). While circuit law may provide persuasive authority in determining 7 8 whether the state court made an unreasonable application of Supreme Court 9 precedent, the only definitive source of clearly established federal law under 28 10 U.S.C. § 2254(d) is in the holdings (as opposed to the dicta) of the Supreme 11 Court as of the time of the state court decision. Id. at 412; Clark v. Murphy, 331 12 F.3d 1062, 1069 (9th Cir. 2003). When the state court decisions do not provide a reasoned opinion, as in 13 14 this case, the Court “must conduct an independent review of the record to 15 determine whether the state court’s decision was objectively unreasonable.” Sass 16 v. California Bd. of Prison Terms, 461 F.3d 1123, 1127 (9th Cir. 2006). 17 18 DISCUSSION A. Due Process and the “Some Evidence” Standard for Parole Suitability Determinations 19 The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the government from 20 depriving a prisoner of life, liberty or property without due process of law. U.S. 21 Const. Amends. V & XIV. It is now settled that California’s parole scheme, 22 codified in California Penal Code section 3041, vests all “prisoners whose 23 sentences provide for the possibility of parole with a constitutionally protected 24 liberty interest in the receipt of a parole release date, a liberty interest that is 25 protected by the procedural safeguards of the Due Process Clause.” Irons v. 26 Carey, 505 F.3d 846, 850 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Sass, 461 F.3d at 1128); Biggs v. 27 28 9 1 Terhune, 334 F.3d 910, 914 (9th Cir. 2003); McQuillon v. Duncan, 306 F.3d 895, 2 903 (9th Cir. 2002). It does not matter that a parole release date has not been set 3 for the prisoner because “[t]he liberty interest is created, not upon the grant of a 4 parole date, but upon the incarceration of the inmate.” Biggs, 334 F.3d at 915. 5 Due process accordingly requires that a parole board premise its decision 6 regarding a petitioner’s parole suitability on “some evidence in the record” such 7 that the decision is not arbitrary. Sass, 461 F.3d at 1128-29 (quoting 8 Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 457 (1985)). The “some evidence” 9 standard is clearly established federal law in the parole context for purposes of 28 10 11 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Sass, 461 F.3d at 1129. The Supreme Court set forth the “some evidence” standard in Hill, which 12 concerned the revocation of “good time” credits towards parole resulting from 13 prisoner misconduct. Hill, 472 U.S. at 455. The Court rested its holding upon 14 the procedural due process foundation it laid in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 15 539, 563-67 (1974). As the Court noted, Wolff required, among other things, that 16 a prisoner receive “a written statement by the fact finder of the evidence relied on 17 and the reasons” for the deprivation of his good time credits. Hill, 472 U.S. at 18 454 (citing Wolff, 418 U.S. at 565). The Court then added to the foundation it 19 laid in Wolff: “[R]evocation of good time does not comport with ‘the minimum 20 requirements of procedural due process,’ unless the findings of the prison 21 disciplinary board are supported by some evidence in the record.” Hill, 472 U.S. 22 at 455 (quoting Wolff, 418 U.S. at 558). 23 The “some evidence” standard does not permit the Court to “reweigh the 24 evidence.” Powell v. Gomez, 33 F.3d 39, 42 (9th Cir. 1994). Instead, the inquiry 25 is “whether there is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion 26 reached by the disciplinary board.” Hill, 472 U.S. at 455-56. While this test is 27 28 10 1 not stringent, it must at minimum protect a prisoner’s “strong interest in assuring 2 that the loss of [parole] is not imposed arbitrarily.” Id. at 454. 3 Due process also requires that the evidence underlying the parole board’s 4 decision have some indicium of reliability. Biggs, 334 F.3d at 915; McQuillion, 5 306 F.3d at 904. Relevant to this inquiry is whether the prisoner was afforded an 6 opportunity to appear before, and present evidence to, the board. See Pedro v. 7 Oregon Parole Bd., 825 F.2d 1396, 1399 (9th Cir. 1987). If BPH’s determination 8 of parole unsuitability is to satisfy due process, there must be some reliable 9 evidence to support the decision. Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229, 1232 (9th Cir. 10 2005). 11 B. 12 California Law Regarding Parole Suitability Determinations When assessing whether a state parole board’s suitability determination 13 was supported by “some evidence,” the Court’s analysis is framed by the statutes 14 and regulations governing parole suitability determinations in the relevant state. 15 Irons, 505 F.3d at 850. Under California law, prisoners serving indeterminate life 16 sentences, like Petitioner, become eligible for parole after serving minimum 17 terms of confinement required by statute. In re Dannenberg, 34 Cal. 4th 1061, 18 1069-70 (2005). At that point, California’s parole scheme provides that BPH 19 “shall set a release date unless it determines that the gravity of the current 20 convicted offense or offenses, or the timing and gravity of current or past 21 convicted offense or offenses, is such that consideration of the public safety 22 requires a more lengthy period of incarceration.” Cal. Pen. Code § 3041(b). 23 Regardless of the length of the time served, “a life prisoner shall be found 24 unsuitable for and denied parole if in the judgment of the panel the prisoner will 25 pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released from prison.” Cal. 26 Code Regs. tit. 15, § 2402(a). In making this determination, BPH must consider 27 28 11 1 various factors, including the prisoner’s social history, past and present mental 2 state, past criminal history, the base and other commitment offenses, including 3 behavior before, during and after the crime, past and present attitude toward the 4 crime and any other information that bears on the prisoner’s suitability for 5 release. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 2402(b)–(d). 6 In considering the commitment offense, BPH must determine whether “the 7 prisoner committed the offense in an especially heinous, atrocious or cruel 8 manner.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 2402(c)(1). The factors to be considered in 9 making that determination include: “(A) Multiple victims were attacked, injured 10 or killed in the same or separate incidents; (B) The offense was carried out in a 11 dispassionate and calculated manner, such as an execution-style murder; (C) The 12 victim was abused, defiled or mutilated during or after the offense; (D) The 13 offense was carried out in a manner which demonstrates an exceptionally callous 14 disregard for human suffering; (E) The motive for the crime is inexplicable or 15 very trivial in relation to the offense.” Id. 16 Under California law, the “core determination” regarding a prisoner’s 17 threat to public safety “involves an assessment of an inmate’s current 18 dangerousness.” See In re Lawrence, 44 Cal. 4th 1181, 1205 (2008) (emphasis in 19 original) (citing In re Rosenkrantz, 29 Cal. 4th 616 (2002) and In re Dannenberg, 20 34 Cal. 4th 1061 (2005)). According to the state supreme court, 21 22 23 24 25 26 to the extent our decisions in Rosenkrantz and Dannenberg have been read to imply that a particularly egregious commitment offense always will provide the requisite modicum of evidence supporting the Board’s or the Governor’s decision, this assumption is inconsistent with the statutory mandate that the Board and the Governor consider all relevant statutory factors when evaluating an inmate’s suitability for parole, and inconsistent with the inmate’s due process liberty interest in parole that we recognized in Rosenkrantz. 27 28 12 1 Lawrence, 44 Cal. 4th at 1191 (emphasis in original). The court continued: 2 In some cases, such as this one, in which evidence of the inmate’s rehabilitation and suitability for parole under the governing statutes and regulations is overwhelming, the only evidence related to unsuitability is the gravity of the commitment offense, and that offense is both temporally remote and mitigated by circumstances indicating the conduct is unlikely to recur, the immutable circumstance that the commitment offense involved aggravated conduct does not provide “some evidence” inevitably supporting the ultimate decision that the inmate remains a threat to public safety. 3 4 5 6 7 8 Id. (emphasis in original). 9 C. Ninth Circuit Law Regarding Parole Suitability Determinations 10 A critical issue in parole denial cases concerns BPH’s use of evidence 11 about the crime that led to the conviction. A trio of Ninth Circuit cases guide the 12 application of the Superintendent v. Hill “some evidence” standard in 13 determining whether or not a particular prisoner would pose an unreasonable risk 14 of danger to society or a threat to public safety if released from prison, taking into 15 account the circumstances of the commitment offense: Biggs, 334 F.3d 910, 16 Sass, 461 F.3d 1123, and Irons, 505 F.3d 846. The first case, Biggs, explained 17 that the value of the criminal offense fades over time as a predictor of parole 18 suitability: 19 23 The Parole Board’s decision is one of ‘equity’ and requires a careful balancing and assessment of the factors considered. . . . A continued reliance in the future on an unchanging factor, the circumstance of the offense and conduct prior to imprisonment, runs contrary to the rehabilitative goals espoused by the prison system and could result in a due process violation. 24 Biggs, 334 F.3d at 916-17. Although the court in Biggs upheld the initial denial 25 of a parole date based solely on the nature of the crime and the prisoner’s conduct 26 before incarceration, it cautioned that “[o]ver time . . ., should Biggs continue to 20 21 22 27 28 13 1 demonstrate exemplary behavior and evidence of rehabilitation, denying him a 2 parole date simply because of the nature of Biggs’ offense and prior conduct 3 would raise serious questions involving his liberty interest in parole.” Id. at 916. 4 Next came Sass, which criticized the court’s statements in Biggs as 5 improper and beyond the scope of the dispute before the court. Sass determined 6 that the parole board is not precluded from relying on unchanging factors such as 7 the circumstances of the commitment offense or the parole applicant’s 8 pre-offense behavior in determining parole suitability. See Sass, 461 F.3d at 9 1129 (commitment offenses in combination with prior offenses provided some 10 evidence to support denial of parole at subsequent parole consideration hearing). 11 The last of the three cases, Irons, determined that due process was not 12 violated by the use of the commitment offense and pre-offense criminality to 13 deny parole for a prisoner sixteen years into his seventeen-to-life sentence. Irons 14 emphasized, however, that in all three cases (Irons, Sass and Biggs) in which the 15 court had “held that a parole board’s decision to deem a prisoner unsuitable for 16 parole solely on the basis of his commitment offense comports with due process, 17 the decision was made before the inmate had served the minimum number of 18 years required by his sentence.” Irons, 505 F.3d at 853. The court, citing Biggs, 19 then expressed “hope that the Board will come to recognize that in some cases, 20 indefinite detention based solely on an inmate’s commitment offense, regardless 21 of the extent of his rehabilitation, will at some point violate due process, given 22 the liberty interest in parole that flows from the relevant California statutes.” Id. 23 at 854. 24 D. 25 26 Analysis of Petitioner’s Due Process Claim Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief from BPH’s May 9, 2007 decision finding him not suitable for parole, and denying him a subsequent 27 28 14 1 hearing for one year, on the ground that the decision does not comport with due 2 process. Specifically, Petitioner claims that BPH’s decision is not supported by 3 the evidence in the record and instead is based on the unchanging facts of his 4 commitment offense. Doc. #1. Respondent answers that Petitioner has not 5 demonstrated that the state court decision was contrary to, or an unreasonable 6 application of, clearly established federal law, or that it was based on an 7 unreasonable determination of the facts, and that therefore he is not entitled to 8 relief. Doc. #6 at 4. 9 After a careful independent review of the record, the Court finds that the 10 state court’s implicit determination that BPH’s decision to deny Petitioner parole 11 was supported by “some evidence” was objectively unreasonable. See 28 U.S.C. 12 § 2254(d); Sass, 461 F.3d at 1127. 13 At his 2007 parole suitability hearing, BPH found Petitioner was not 14 suitable for parole and would pose an unreasonable risk to society or threat to 15 public safety if released from prison. Doc. #6-2 at 60-61. BPH based its decision 16 primarily on the circumstances of the commitment offense, but also relied on 17 what it viewed as a “little gap” in Petitioner’s “understanding of the critical 18 elements that led to the life crime.” Id. at 66, 68 & 70. Neither factor constitutes 19 some reliable evidence in support of BPH’s decision to deny Petitioner parole. 20 According to the psychologist who evaluated Petitioner prior to his 2007 21 hearing, Petitioner posed “no more risk to society than the average citizen in the 22 community. In fact, based upon his self-understanding, life experiences, growth 23 and maturity over the years, he probably poses less risk to society than the 24 average citizen in the community.” Doc. #1-2 at 26. The psychologist concluded 25 that Petitioner’s “prognosis for successful adjustment in the community is very 26 excellent.” Id. And regarding Petitioner’s “understanding of the critical 27 28 15 1 elements that led to the life crime,” the psychologist directly contradicted BPH’s 2 finding, observing: 3 4 5 6 7 [Petitioner] has explored the commitment offense and the underlining [sic] causes at length. I agree with Dr. Sexton’s assessment that his explanation of the causes related to this offense is outstanding. He totally understands what motivated him to become involved in this offense at the time. He continues to be remorseful and bothered by this action. He does not need to participate in any further counseling, therapy or self-help groups in order to understand himself and his actions better at that time. 8 9 Doc. #1-2 at 25-26; see also id. at 28-33 (October 11, 2004 report of Dr. Sexton). 10 In fact, nothing in the record supports BPH’s finding that there was a gap in 11 Petitioner’s understanding of the circumstances that led to his attempted murder 12 of his former girlfriend. During the course of his parole suitability hearing, 13 Petitioner was insightful and remorseful about the commitment offense and 14 underlining causes, prompting BPH to comment that “[t]here’s no question that 15 you’ve come to grips with the crime.” Doc. #6-2 at 68. 16 In light of the conclusion reached by the two licensed psychologists who 17 evaluated Petitioner, and the lack of any evidence in the transcript of the May 9, 18 2007 parole suitability hearing or other part of the record indicating that there 19 was a gap in Petitioner’s understanding of the underlining causes to led to the 20 crime, the Court dismisses BPH’s concern that Petitioner was not yet equipped to 21 transition successfully back into the community if he were granted parole, see 22 Doc. #6-2 at 68-69, as not supported by some reliable evidence. See Rosas, 428 23 F.3d at 1232 (if BPH’s determination of parole unsuitability is to satisfy due 24 process, there must be some reliable evidence to support the decision). Also 25 weighing heavily in favor of a finding of suitability was the solid support system 26 that awaited Petitioner upon his release, documented by the numerous letters of 27 28 16 1 support he received from family members and friends, which included multiple 2 firm offers of employment, financial support, as well as a place to live. See Doc. 3 #6-2 at 15-25. 4 Petitioner’s criminal offense was an isolated aberration in his past, 5 “temporally remote” – committed some seventeen years earlier – and certainly 6 mitigated by various circumstances indicating the conduct is unlikely to recur. 7 See Lawrence, 44 Cal. 4th at 1191. At the time BPH denied Petitioner a parole 8 date for the fifth time in 2007, he had served seventeen years on his seven-to-life 9 sentence, almost nine years past his minimum eligible parole date. Perhaps in 10 some cases the circumstances of a prisoner’s commitment offense reasonably 11 may continue to predict his future even in spite of a prisoner’s dramatic 12 behavioral improvement while in prison. But, where, as here, Petitioner’s 13 complete lack of a violent history, his strong and wide-spread support from 14 family and friends, realistic parole plans that included multiple offers of 15 employment, financial support, and a place to live, highly favorable 16 psychological evaluations and his lack of any serious disciplinary violations 17 throughout his entire time spent behind bars, his continued imprisonment based 18 on the circumstances of his 1990 commitment offense rises to the level of a due 19 process violation the Ninth Circuit envisioned. See Irons, 505 F.3d at 854 (“in 20 some cases, indefinite detention based solely on an inmate’s commitment 21 offense, regardless of the extent of his rehabilitation, will at some point violate 22 due process, given the liberty interest in parole that flows from the relevant 23 California statutes”). Put in terms of Hill’s “some evidence” standard, under the 24 circumstances of this case, the circumstances of Petitioner’s commitment offense 25 of seventeen years ago do not constitute some evidence sufficient to support the 26 conclusion that petitioner remains a threat to public safety. See Hill, 472 U.S. at 27 28 17 1 2 455; Lawrence, 44 Cal. 4th at 1191. After careful review of the law and the entire record now before the Court, 3 it is difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile BPH’s decision to deny Petitioner 4 parole with the evidence upon which it relied to make that decision. The Court 5 finds the record was “so devoid of evidence that the findings of [BPH] were 6 without support or otherwise arbitrary. ” Hill, 472 U.S. at 457. The state court’s 7 implicit determination that BPH’s finding that Petitioner was unsuitable for 8 parole and posed an unreasonable danger to society or threat to public safety if 9 released from prison constituted “some evidence” of unsuitability was objectively 10 unreasonable. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Sass, 461 F.3d at 1127. There simply 11 was no reliable evidence to suggest that Petitioner would pose an unreasonable 12 risk of danger to society or a threat to public safety if released on parole. Cal. 13 Code Regs. tit. 15, § 2402(a). Petitioner is entitled to federal habeas relief on his 14 due process claim. 15 16 CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is 17 GRANTED. Within twenty (20) days of the date of this order, BPH must 18 calculate a term for Petitioner and set an imminent date for his release in 19 accordance with California Penal Code § 3041(a). Within ten (10) days of 20 Petitioner’s release, Respondent must file a notice with the Court confirming the 21 date on which Petitioner was released. 22 The Clerk is instructed to enter judgment in accordance with this order. 23 SO ORDERED. 24 DATED: April 8, 2010 25 26 CHARLES R. BREYER United States District Judge G:\PRO-SE\CRB\HC.08\Ruvalcaba-08-2483-bph grant.wpd 27 28 18
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
