Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Super. Ct. No. 19788
Chris R. Redburn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioner.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer A. Neill and Heather M. Heckler, Deputy Attorneys General, for Respondent.
OPINION
Levy, J.
INTRODUCTION
Petitioner Arthur Negrette Aguirre filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that the 2007 decision of the Board of Parole Hearings (Board) denying him parole is not supported by some evidence. We issued an order to show cause. After review of the record and applicable law, we conclude that the matter must be remanded to the Board for reconsideration of petitioner’s parole suitability in accordance with the standard explained and clarified in In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181 (Lawrence) and In re Shaputis (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1241 (Shaputis).
FACTS
On December 30, 1979, petitioner, his younger brother and Abundio Uriarte carjacked and beat up Dominic Zappia because they wanted the wheels on a car Zappia was driving. After beating up Zappia and leaving him lying in a ditch, Uriarte and petitioner’s brother got into the car. Petitioner was armed with a handgun and he fired six shots at Zappia. Four of the shots missed and two of them misfired. Petitioner went down into the ditch, knelt and fatally shot Zappia in the head. They drove away. When they could not remove the wheels from the car, they set it on fire.
Petitioner was 16 years old when he murdered Zappia. He was found unfit for treatment as a juvenile. He accepted a negotiated plea agreement and pled guilty to one count of first degree murder. He was sentenced to 27-years-to-life imprisonment.
There was some evidence indicating that in the six-month period before Zappia’s murder, petitioner participated in two other murders by providing the gun used in one of the killings and by being present at and providing the getaway car used in the other one. Petitioner was charged in both of these homicides. The charges in one of the homicides were dismissed as part of the plea bargain in the present case and the charges in the other homicide were dismissed on double jeopardy grounds.
While incarcerated, petitioner has received six citations for serious misconduct and five counseling memos for minor misconduct. The citations were issued for destruction of state property, being involved in an altercation, possession of alcohol, possession of marijuana, refusing a direct order from staff and failing to report. Petitioner’s most recent citation was issued in 1988.
California Department of Corrections (CDC) Form 115 is used to document serious misconduct and misconduct that is believed to violate the law. CDC Form 128-A is used to document minor misconduct. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3312, subds. (a)(2) & (a)(3).)
Petitioner was housed in protective custody for a time because some inmates thought he was a northern gang member. He denied gang affiliation.
A 2005 psychological report concluded that petitioner’s risk of harm to others is below average for parolee population.
Petitioner has participated in Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous.
He obtained his GED and certifications in welding, painting and decorating.
He has several positive “chronos” from correctional officers.
A parole suitability hearing was held on August 13, 2007.
Petitioner told the Board that Zappia’s murder was senseless. Petitioner said that he shot Zappia because he was looking for acceptance, did not have any guidance and was afraid of getting caught. He also said that he did not have any regard for human life at that time. He expressed remorse.
If released on parole, several relatives have offered to provide housing for petitioner and he has employment offers.
The Board denied parole for one year. It focused on two major areas in determining that petitioner would pose an unreasonable threat to public safety if he was released from prison: (1) the calculated, cold-blooded and callous circumstances of the commitment offense; and (2) the 2005 psychological report’s failure to assess whether petitioner’s risk of harm to others is low, medium or high. The Board also relied on the facts that petitioner has a history of violence and a record of an escalating pattern of criminal behavior. The Board also stated petitioner lacked insight into the offense. The Board pointed out that while imprisoned petitioner has been disciplined for serious misconduct six times and has received five counseling memos. The Board commended petitioner for his positive vocational and work record since 1999 or 2000. However, it concluded that these positive achievements do not outweigh the factors of unsuitability. The Board stated that it “cannot get past the really horrific nature of this crime.” It directed petitioner to explore the underlying causes for the murder. The Board stated that it would request a new psychological evaluation to be conducted.
A new psychological report was prepared in 2008.
DISCUSSION
I. Statutory and regulatory framework governing parole decisions.
Under the current sentencing law, offenders convicted of noncapital murder are subject to indeterminate sentences. They may serve up to life imprisonment, but become eligible for parole after serving minimum terms of confinement. (In re Dannenberg (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1061, 1078 (Dannenberg).) In the case of an inmate sentenced to life in prison, a panel of commissioners of the Board meets with the inmate and sets a parole release date one year prior to an inmate’s minimum eligible parole release date unless it determines that public safety requires a lengthier period of incarceration. (Pen. Code, §3041, subds. (a) & (b).) “Regardless of the length of time served, a life prisoner shall be found unsuitable for and denied parole if in the judgment of the panel the prisoner will pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released from prison.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2402, subd. (a).)
Unless otherwise specified all statutory references are to the Penal Code.
In determining suitability for parole, the Board must consider factors specified by regulation. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2402.) Parole considerations applicable to life prisoners convicted of murder are contained in California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 2400 et seq.
Factors tending to establish unsuitability for parole include that the inmate: (1) committed the offense in an especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel manner; (2) has a previous record of violence; (3) has an unstable social history; (4) has sexually assaulted another individual in a sadistic manner; (5) has a lengthy history of severe mental problems related to the offense; and (6) has engaged in serious misconduct while in prison or jail. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2402, subd. (c)(1)-(6).)
Factors tending to show suitability for parole include that the inmate: (1) does not have a juvenile record of assaulting others or committing crimes with the potential of personal harm to victims; (2) has a stable social history; (3) has shown signs of remorse; (4) committed the crime as the result of significant stress in his or her life, especially if the stress built up over a long period; (5) committed the crime as a result of Battered Woman Syndrome; (6) lacks any significant history of violent crime; (7) is of an age that reduces the probability of recidivism; (8) has made realistic plans for release, or has developed marketable skills that can be put to use upon release; and (9) has engaged in institutional activities suggesting an enhanced ability to function within the law upon release. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2402, subd. (d)(1)-(9).)
These factors are only general guidelines and the Board must consider all reliable, relevant information available to it when determining parole suitability. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2402, subd. (b).) The paramount consideration for both the Board and the Governor when determining parole suitability is public safety. This requires an assessment of the inmate’s current dangerousness. (Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1205; Shaputis, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1254.)
The Governor has authority pursuant to subdivision (b) of section 8 of article V of the California Constitution to affirm, modify or reverse the Board’s parole decision. (In re Rosenkrantz (2002) 29 Cal.4th 616, 660 (Rosenkrantz).) The statutory procedure guiding the Governor’s review of a parole decision of an inmate sentenced to an indeterminate term based upon a murder conviction is contained in section 3041.2. The Governor possesses substantial discretion to weigh the relevant factors involving an inmate’s history and rehabilitation in deciding whether the inmate is suitable for parole. The Governor undertakes an independent, de novo review of the inmate’s suitability for parole based on the record that was before the Board. The Governor may be more stringent or cautious in determining whether an inmate poses an unreasonable risk to public safety. (Shaputis, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1258.) The Governor’s and the Board’s parole decisions are based on the same factors and same evidentiary record. (Rosenkrantz, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 661.)
Appellate courts review the decision of the Board and the Governor to ensure that they are consistent with the applicable legal standards and to assess whether they are supported by some evidence in the record. (Rosenkrantz, supra, 29 Cal.4th at pp. 658-661.)
II. The Board’s decision was methodologically flawed and the matter must be remanded for reconsideration of petitioner’s current dangerousness.
A. In 2007, there was a split in appellate decisions.
When the Board denied parole in this matter, the issue of whether the aggravated circumstances of the commitment offense alone can justify the denial of parole was unsettled. Appellate courts were split on this issue. Some cases presumed that the egregiousness of the commitment offense could support the ultimate determination that the inmate posed a threat to public safety. Inherent in this approach was the assumption that evidence establishing that a commitment offense was particularly egregious inherently assesses the threat currently posed by the inmate to public safety. Conversely, other cases concluded that the applicable inquiry is whether the inmate continues to be currently dangerous and not merely whether the record contains evidence of unsuitability such as the egregiousness of the commitment offense. (Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th at pp. 1206-1210.) Thus, a conflict emerged “as to whether the aggravated circumstances of the commitment offense, standing alone, provide some evidence that the inmate remains a current threat to public safety.” (Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1206.) The appellate court opinions centered upon the precise contours of the some evidence standard of review and the extent to which a determination of current dangerousness should guide a court’s review of the Board’s or the Governor’s decision. Yet, as a result of this conflict, the Board and the Governor were left with contradictory guidance on the methodology they were to apply in fulfilling their statutory and regulatory mandates.
B. Lawrence/Shaputis resolved this conflict.
In 2008, our Supreme Court resolved this conflict as part of its decisions in Lawrence and Shaputis. In relevant part, the high court explained, “In Dannenberg,we confirmed that‘[w]hen the Board bases unsuitability on the circumstances of the commitment offense, it must cite “some evidence” of aggravating facts beyond the minimum elements of that offense. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1207.) In attempting to apply Dannenberg, the split in the appellate courts described above occurred. Lawrence concluded that the minimum elements inquiry has resulted in arbitrary results and is unworkable in practice, partly because few murders could not be characterized as particularly aggravated or as involving some act beyond the minimum required for conviction of the offense. (Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1218.) Also, the minimum elements inquiry substantially undermines the rehabilitative goals of the governing statutes by functionally removing consideration of relevant suitability factors and failing to assess current dangerousness. (Id. at p. 1220.)
Review was granted in Lawrence and Shaputis “to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeal regarding the proper scope of the deferential ‘some evidence’ standard of review set forth in [Rosenkrantz], and thereafter applied in [Dannenberg].” (Shaputis, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1254.)
Lawrence explained that “the determination whether an inmate poses a current danger is not dependent upon whether his or her commitment offense is more or less egregious than other, similar crimes” or “dependent solely upon whether the circumstances of the offense exhibit viciousness above the minimum elements required for conviction of that offense.” (Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1221.) The applicable “inquiry is whether the circumstances of the commitment offense, when considered in light of other facts in the record, are such that they continue to be predictive of current dangerousness many years after commission of the offense.” (Ibid.) The Board or the Governor may deny parole based upon the circumstances of the offense or other immutable facts such as an inmate’s criminal history “only if those facts support the ultimate conclusion that an inmate continues to pose an unreasonable risk to public safety. [Citation.]” (Ibid.) Current dangerousness, rather than the mere presence of statutory unsuitability factors, is the focus of the parole decision. (Id. at p. 1210.)
The predictive value of the commitment offense to the assessment of current dangerousness generally decreases over time. Lawrence cautioned “that certain conviction offenses may be so ‘heinous, atrocious or cruel’ that an inmate’s due process rights would not be violated if he or she were to be denied parole on the basis that the gravity of the conviction offense establishes current dangerousness.” (Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1228.) However, in many cases evidence suggesting that the murder was heinous or egregious will not eternally support decision that the inmate is unsuitable for parole. (Id. at p. 1226.)
“When, as here, all of the information in a postconviction record supports the determination that the inmate is rehabilitated and no longer poses a danger to public safety, and the Governor has neither disputed the petitioner’s rehabilitative gains nor, importantly, related the commitment offense to current circumstances or suggested that any further rehabilitation might change the ultimate decision that petitioner remains a danger, mere recitation of the circumstances of the commitment offense, absent articulation of a rational nexus between those facts and current dangerousness, fails to provide the required ‘modicum of evidence’ of unsuitability.” (Id. at pp. 1226-1227.)
Shaputis reiterated this principle. It explained that the determination whether an inmate poses a current danger is not dependent solely upon whether the circumstances of the offense exhibit viciousness above the minimum elements required for conviction. (Shaputis, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1254.)
“Rather, the relevant inquiry is whether the circumstances of the commitment offense, when considered in light of other facts in the record, are such that they continue to be predictive of current dangerousness many years after commission of the offense. This inquiry is, by necessity and by statutory mandate, an individualized one, and cannot be undertaken simply by examining the circumstances of the crime in isolation, without consideration of the passage of time or the attendant changes in the inmate’s psychological or mental attitude. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Id. at pp. 1254-1255.)
Recently, In re Criscione (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 60 (Criscione) explained, “As Lawrence clarified, however, due consideration ‘requires more than rote recitation of the relevant factors with no reasoning establishing a rational nexus between those factors and the necessary basis for the ultimate decision -- the determination of current dangerousness.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at pp. 74-75.)
C. We cannot presume that the Board applied the proper legal standard and it is apparent that it used a flawed methodology when assessing petitioner’s parole suitability.
The record in this case demonstrates that the Board utilized a flawed methodology when assessing petitioner’s suitability for parole. It heavily relied on the calculated, cold-blooded and callous circumstances of the commitment offense in deciding to deny parole. There is no indication in the Board’s oral remarks or written ruling that it considered whether there was a rational nexus between the immutable factor of the commitment offense and petitioner’s current dangerousness. The Board focused on the facts of the commitment offense and did not assess whether those facts continue to have predictive value in light of petitioner’s institutional behavior, age, and other factors. The Board stated that it could not get beyond the “really horrific nature” of the commitment offense. The Board did not articulate any rational nexus between this immutable factor and petitioner’s current dangerousness. In sum, it identified and focused on the immutable factor of the circumstances of the murder to determine that petitioner was unsuitable for parole but it failed to relate this factor to circumstances that would make it continue to be probative of petitioner’s current dangerousness.
The inmate’s commitment offense has been characterized by the courts as an “immutable factor” because, along with the prisoner’s previous criminal history and record of violence, it is a circumstance that the inmate cannot change. (In re Scott (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 573, 594-595.)
In re Katrina C. (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 540 (Katrina C.) is instructive. “Katrina C. involved a dispositional order transferring custody from one parent to the other, which order issued shortly after the effective date of revision to [Welfare and Institutions Code] section 361 making clear that the higher standard of proof applied.” (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 548.) The appellate court concluded that it could apply the ordinary presumption that the trial court had applied the correct legal standard because the record was silent and “[c]onfusion in this area was engendered by an apparent blurring in case law, including one case decided by this court [citation], between the jurisdictional finding and the dispositional order in dependency cases. [Citation.]” (Katrina C., supra, 201 Cal.App.3d at p. 548.) It remanded the matter to the juvenile court for express articulation of the standard of proof it had applied. If the juvenile court had not applied the clear and convincing standard of proof, it was directed to conduct another dispositional hearing. (Id. at p. 550.)
The situation before us is analogous to Katrina C. in several respects. Just as in Katrina C., the applicable law was blurred in a key respect when the Board made its parole decision. The law has now been clarified and explicit direction has been provided concerning the methodology the Board is to employ when assessing a petitioner’s suitability for parole. Further, it is apparent that in this case the Board did not anticipate the result in Lawrence and Shaputis and consider whether the immutable circumstances of petitioner’s commitment offense and his prior criminal history continue to have predictive value. Rather, the Board simply focused on the presence of suitability and unsuitability factors without considering whether there was a nexus between those factors and petitioner’s current dangerousness. The Board applied a flawed methodology in its decision-making process by failing to consider whether there was a rational nexus between the immutable factors and petitioner’s current dangerousness. Therefore, since the proper methodology to be used when determining parole suitability was unsettled in 2007 and the record does not affirmatively demonstrate that the court applied the correct standard, we conclude that it is not appropriate to apply the ordinary presumption that the Board was aware of and utilized the correct legal standard when assessing petitioner’s suitability for parole. Furthermore, we cannot presume that the Board would have reached the same conclusion about petitioner’s parole suitability had it done so. (Katrina C., supra, 201 Cal.App.3d at p. 548.)
Recently, Criscione, supra, 173 Cal.App.4th 60 reached the same conclusion. The appellate court determined that it could not presume that the Board applied the proper evidentiary standard because the parole decision at issue was made prior to issuance of Lawrence “and the Board’s decision does not clearly indicate that it considered the nexus between the facts upon which it relied and its conclusion that Criscione would present and unreasonable risk to public safety if released.” (Id. at p. 77.) It reasoned:
[¶] “Where the standard of proof has been long settled, and absent a statement to the contrary, we ordinarily presume on appeal that a trial court applied the appropriate evidentiary standard. [Citation.] We would apply a similar presumption to decisions of the Board but the law pertaining to the parole decision has not been long settled. Until Lawrence, some reviewing courts assumed that a parole denial based simply upon evidence that the commitment offense was particularly heinous, atrocious, or cruel [citation] comported with due process, so long as the Board indicated it considered the other regulatory factors. [Citation.] As Lawrence clarified, however, due consideration ‘requires more than rote recitation of the relevant factors with no reasoning establishing a rational nexus between those factors and the necessary basis for the ultimate decision -- the determination of current dangerousness.’ [Citation.] In the present case, although the Board recited its conclusion that Criscione would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society or a threat to public safety if released from prison, the Board did not articulate any nexus between the factors upon which it relied and its ultimate conclusion.” (Criscione, supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at pp. 74-75.)
Further:
[¶] “… the Board did not have benefit of Lawrence and Shaputis and the Board’s decision does not clearly indicate that it considered the nexus between the facts upon which it relied and its conclusion that Criscione would present an unreasonable risk to public safety if released. In these circumstances, we cannot presume that the Board applied the evidentiary standard as clarified by Lawrence or that it would have reached the same conclusion had it done so. Accordingly, remand is warranted.” (Criscione, supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at p. 77.)
D. The proper remedy is remand to the Board to allow it to apply the standard explained and clarified in Lawrence and Shaputis.
In determining the appropriate remedy, we are principally guided by In re Ramirez (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 549. “In Ramirez, the appellate court concluded the Board of Prison Terms had erred by failing to consider the proportionality of an inmate’s sentence in relation to the determinate term prescribed for his crimes, or the gravity of his offenses as compared with other similar offenses. [Citation.]” (In re Rico (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 659, 687, fn. omitted (Rico).) Ramirez also concluded that the trial court erred by making its own evaluation of the evidence before the Board and by ordering the Board to set a parole date. Ramirez explained, “In deference to the Board’s broad discretion over parole suitability decisions, courts should refrain from reweighing the evidence, and should be reluctant to direct a particular result. [Citation.] The Board must be given every opportunity to lawfully exercise its discretion over Ramirez’s parole application.” (Ramirez, supra, 94 Cal.App.4th at p. 572.) Therefore, it reversed the trial court’s order and directed the Board to conduct another parole suitability hearing conforming to specific legal guidelines. (Ibid.) Although the proportionality aspects of the Ramirez decision were later disapproved by Dannenberg, supra, 34 Cal.4th at pages 1070-1071, the remedy was not.
Ramirez’s conclusion that the Board must be given every opportunity to lawfully exercise its discretion over the parole decision is persuasive and the remedy it crafted is applicable where, as in this case, the Board’s decision was based upon a flawed methodology. (See, e.g., Rico, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 688.)
When, as here, the Board or the Governor made the parole suitability decision prior to issuance of Lawrence and relied in substantial part on immutable factors, we believe that the appropriate remedy is to remand for reconsideration so that the Board can exercise its discretion in this matter after assessing the petitioner’s parole suitability using the proper methodology and correct standard as explained and clarified in Lawrence and Shaputis.
Criscione, supra, 173 Cal.App.4th 60 agrees with this reasoning and result. In relevant part, Criscione concluded, “Since Lawrence was not decided until after the proceedings from which this appeal is taken, and since our independent review of the record suggests that the Board did not adhere to the evidentiary standard Lawrence described, we shall remand the matter to the Board for rehearing in light of this clarifying law.” (Id. at p. 65.) Some other published decisions also have concluded that remand for reconsideration in light of Lawrence and Shaputis is the appropriate remedy for various errors. (See In re Ross (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1490, petn. for review pending, petn. filed May 5, 2009, time for grant or denial of review extended to June 18, 2009 [record contained some evidence of dangerousness but remand for reconsideration was necessary because the Governor’s decision did not expressly articulate a nexus between commitment offense and current dangerousness]; In re Lazor (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1185 [Board’s decision failed to identify some evidence of current dangerousness; proper remedy is to remand for reconsideration].)
E. The separation of powers doctrine precludes us from assessing whether the Board’s 2007 decision is supported by some evidence.
The parties argue against remand for a new parole suitability hearing to assess petitioner’s current dangerousness under the standard explained and clarified in Lawrence and Shaputis. They urge us to review the Board’s 2007 decision for the existence or nonexistence of some evidence and then grant direct relief as appropriate, relying on some recent appellate court decisions that have followed this course. (See, e.g., In re Aguilar (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1479; In re Burdan (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 18; In re Vasquez (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 370; Rico, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th 659.)
We are not convinced that this is the prudent course. If were we to assess the Board’s 2007 decision denying parole for the existence of some evidence under the standard clarified in Lawrence and then fashion relief based on our conclusion, we would effectively be precluding the Board from making the initial determination of petitioner’s current dangerousness using the correct methodology and proper legal standard. This runs a serious risk of violating the separation of powers doctrine.
In re Lugo (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1522 (Lugo), explains the separation of powers doctrine, as follows:
[¶] “The separation of powers principle is embodied in the California Constitution, which provides as follows in article III, section 3: ‘The powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial. Persons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others except as permitted by this Constitution.’ ‘“The separation of powers doctrine limits the authority of one of the three branches of government to arrogate to itself the core functions of another branch. [Citations.]” [Citation.]’ [Citation.] Although the doctrine is not intended to prohibit one branch from taking action that might affect those of another branch, the doctrine is violated when the actions of one branch ‘defeat or materially impair the inherent functions of another branch. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] Intrusions by the judiciary into the executive branch’s realm of parole matters may violate the separation of powers. [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 1538.)
The judicial branch has a limited and carefully circumscribed duty to review parole decisions. “The Board’s discretion in parole-related matters has been described as ‘great’ and ‘almost unlimited.’ [Citation.] Nevertheless, the requirement of procedural due process places some limitations upon the broad discretionary powers of the Board. [Citation.]” (Lugo, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 1537; Rosenkrantz, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 667.) Whether reviewing a decision by the Board or reviewing the Governor’s exercise of his power under article V, section 8, subdivision (b) of the California Constitution, the applicability of the highly-deferential some evidence standard of review is rooted in principles of separation of powers. (Rosenkrantz, supra, 29 Cal.4th at pp. 652-667.) “The executive branch has ‘inherent and primary authority’ over parole matters. [Citation.] Within that branch, the Board is an ‘executive parole agency’ that is an ‘arm of the Department of Corrections.’ [Citations.]” (In re Roberts (2005) 36 Cal.4th 575, 588, fn. omitted.) “By its nature, the determination whether a prisoner should be released on parole is generally regarded as an executive branch decision. [Citations.] The decision, and the discretion implicit in it, are expressly committed to the executive branch. [Citations.] It is not a judicial decision. [Citations.]” (In re Morrall (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 280, 287.)
We must be vigilant to ensure that our judicial review of a parole decision is carefully exercised so that it does not violate the separation of powers by intruding upon the executive branch’s broad discretion in parole-related matters. (See, e.g., Lugo, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th 1522 [order requiring Board to state a significant change in circumstances justifying decision to deny parole for more than one year following a prior one-year parole denial violated separation of powers doctrine]; Hornung v. Superior Court (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1099 [court order allowing inmate to question commissions about their parole-related decision process violated separation of powers]; In re Masoner (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1098 [trial court’s order directing inmate’s release violated separation of powers because Board must be given opportunity to determine if new evidence of his conduct or change in his mental state support a determination that he is currently dangerous].)
We believe that the separation of powers doctrine requires the Board and the Governor to first assess the evidence in this case and determine if petitioner is currently dangerous under the standard explained and clarified in Lawrence and Shaputis. Once the initial determination of current dangerousness has been made by the executive branch, then it is proper for this court to review the factual basis of this decision under the deferential some evidence standard. (Rosenkrantz, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 658.) To determine at this point whether there is some evidence of current dangerousness under the standard explained and clarified in Lawrence and Shaputis would essentially place this court in the position of acting as the initial fact-finder, thereby usurping the proper role of the Board and the Governor. It would effectively preclude the executive branch’s exercise of discretion in this matter. To protect the separation of powers, we believe that the executive branch should be the first to decide the ultimate question of whether petitioner is currently dangerous under the standard clarified in Lawrence, not the courts.
DISPOSITION
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted. The Board is ordered to vacate its 2007 decision denying parole and to conduct a new hearing within 90 days to consider petitioner’s parole suitability in accordance with the standards explained and clarified in Lawrence and Shaputis. During this hearing, the Board is directed to consider the evidence presented at the 2007 hearing, the 2008 psychological report and any new evidence of petitioner’s conduct, circumstances or mental state.
WE CONCUR: Vartabedian, Acting P.J. Cornell, J.