From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Coleman v. Board of Prison Terms

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 2, 2006
No. CIV. S-96-0783 LKK/PAN P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2006)

Opinion

No. CIV. S-96-0783 LKK/PAN P.

February 2, 2006


ORDER


Pending before the court is petitioner's motion for immediate release from custody. Petitioner, a state prisoner represented by the Office of the Federal Defender, asserts that his July 2005 parole hearing was biased based on a gubernatorial policy against parole for inmates convicted of murder. For the reasons set forth below, the court denies petitioner's motion.

In 1974, petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and other charges. Petitioner was sentenced under the indeterminate sentencing law to seven-years-to-life imprisonment. Petitioner was denied parole in 1993 and in 1995.

In 1997, petitioner filed a writ of habeas corps claiming that the California Board of Prison Terms had failed to conduct a fair parole suitability hearing. Specifically, petitioner maintained that a blanket gubernatorial policy against parole for lifers convicted of murder prevented him from obtaining a fair parole hearing.

In December 2004, the magistrate judge recommended granting the writ, finding that there was ample evidence of a gubernatorial policy denying parole to almost all inmates convicted of murder. This court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations in May of 2005 and issued a conditional writ. In July of 2005, the petitioner was given a new hearing before two commissioners. The Board gave petitioner a 5 year denial of parole suitability.

Petitioner brings the pending motion on the grounds that between the issuance of the findings and recommendations in December of 2004 and the July 2005 hearing, there was no change in the gubernatorial policy and thus, the July hearing suffered the same bias as the previous hearings.

Petitioner's counsel explained that although she attempted to obtain current statistics regarding "parole suitability, rescission, and Governor's review decisions during the 2005 and/or 2004-2005 calendar years," Pet.'s Mot. for Imm. Rel. at 4, she was unable to receive these statistics. Nonetheless, petitioner maintains that there "has been no change in the Board's policies and practices." Id.

Despite petitioner's assertion, there is simply no evidence that the July 2005 parole hearing suffered from the same constitutional defects as the parole hearings that occurred in the 1990s. Petitioner's second amended petition, filed in 1997, contained extensive documentation of a gubernatorial policy in place in the early 1990s. This documentation included pages of statistics revealing that almost no California inmates convicted of murder were being granted parole. Also attached to the petition were several newspaper articles discussing Governor Pete Wilson's policy of personally blocking parole for life prisoners convicted of murder. It was upon this information that this court originally granted the writ and petitioner was given a new parole hearing.

Petitioner fails to present any evidence that the gubernatorial policy in place in the 1900s continued to be in place in July 2005, when petitioner had his most recent parole hearing. Since petitioner filed his amended petition in 1997, a new governor has been elected and unlike the statistics and news articles documenting Governor Pete Wilson's policy of not granting parole to inmates convicted of murder, petitioner presents no evidence that Governor Schwarzenegger is following the same policy.

The only other evidence put forth by petitioner is biographical information about one of the board members, Ms. Fischer, who sat on petitioner's July 2005 parole board. Specifically, petitioner points to a government website in which it is revealed that from 1999 to 2004, she served as executive director of the Doris Tate Crime Victims Bureau and before that, served on the organization's board of directors for seven years. Petitioner maintains that this is further evidence that the parole board was biased. The court cannot agree for the same reasons stated above: there is simply no evidence of a policy of denying parole under the new governor's administration.

In short, there is no evidence to suggest that the July 2005 parole hearing suffered from the same constitutional defect that was present in the 1993 and 1995 parole hearings. For these reasons, petitioner's motion for immediate release is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Coleman v. Board of Prison Terms

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 2, 2006
No. CIV. S-96-0783 LKK/PAN P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2006)
Case details for

Coleman v. Board of Prison Terms

Case Details

Full title:MELVYN COLEMAN, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF PRISON TERMS, et al., Respondents

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Feb 2, 2006

Citations

No. CIV. S-96-0783 LKK/PAN P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2006)