Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Munger, Tolles & Olson, Randall G. Sommer and Laura D. Smolowe for Petitioner Joyce Ann Pettis.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Malone and Nikhil Cooper, Deputy Attorneys General for Respondent Guillermo G. Garcia, Warden of the California Institution for Women.
KITCHING, J.
INTRODUCTION
Petitioner Joyce Ann Pettis is an inmate in the custody of respondent Guillermo G. Garcia, Warden of the California Institution for Women. Pettis filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the Governor’s reversal of the Board of Parole Hearings’ (the Board) decision that Pettis is suitable for parole. We hold the Governor’s decision is not supported by any evidence that Pettis currently poses an unreasonable risk to public safety. Accordingly, we grant the petition and reinstate the Board’s decision.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This is Pettis’s second petition for writ of habeas corpus in this court. In a non-published opinion, In re Joyce Ann Pettis (Mar. 2, 2010, B218905) (Pettis I), we reversed the Board’s July 31, 2008, order denying Pettis parole and remanded the matter to the Board.
1. Pettis’s Prior Criminal History
As we stated in Pettis I, Pettis did not have a juvenile criminal record and had a limited criminal record as an adult prior to the commitment offense. Pettis was convicted of two non-violent misdemeanor offenses for which she spent a total of five days in county jail.
2. The Commitment Offense
In Pettis I, we described the circumstances leading to the murder of petitioner’s husband Ralph Pettis in this way: “In 1986, Joyce and Ralph Pettis lived in Long Beach, California. Their relationship was tumultuous at best. It was plagued by the excessive use of alcohol and violence. Ralph Pettis would start by verbally abusing Pettis, then he would ‘go into physical [abuse].’ Ralph and Joyce fought frequently. Joyce would receive ‘[b]lack eyes, a lot of black eyes [and] bruises, because he [would] get [her down] and when he [would] get [her] down he would kick [her].’ Joyce was taken to the hospital on at least one occasion; Ralph had kicked her so hard in the side that she had to be checked for broken bones. On another occasion, Ralph was arrested for assault with a deadly weapon after he threatened Joyce with a shotgun.
At times we refer to the parties by their first names. This is done, not out of any disrespect, but for clarity.
“Joyce Pettis had tried to leave Ralph. In 1985 she went to Canada where her mother lived. Ralph found out where she was and threatened to go up to Canada and murder Joyce’s mother if Joyce did not come back. Joyce decided to return to Ralph. On another occasion, Joyce went to Tucson where she was living in a motel and working in a small restaurant. Ralph again found out where Joyce was and, on that occasion, went to Tucson to bring her back.
“In approximately November 1985, Joyce Pettis began a clandestine romantic affair with her neighbor and co-defendant, Raymond Kelsch. Joyce was drinking heavily at the time and that played a role in her decision to have an affair. Joyce referred to the relationship as ‘[a] drunken[, ] short affair.’ She indicated that, ‘[a]t the end [she] was drinking probably half a gallon of vodka a day.’
“In March 1986 Joyce, feeling trapped in her marriage to Ralph, agreed with Kelsch that something had to be done. Kelsch suggested that Joyce hire someone to kill Ralph and Joyce agreed. Kelsch then introduced Joyce to co-defendant Jacob Ama, who agreed to shoot Ralph for a fee of $1,000. Joyce indicated that, at the time, she ‘didn’t know what else to do. [She had] tried to get away from him, ’ but had been unable to do so. Joyce indicated she had been ‘beat[en] so many times. To [her] and the alcohol and [her] thought process[es] it was the only way out for [her].’ She indicated that, at that time, ‘[i]t was like both [she and Kelsch] agreed.’
“On or about March 7, 1986, Joyce was out with Ralph. They fought and both were arrested. Ralph used money from Joyce’s bank account to bail himself out of jail, but left Joyce in jail. Joyce was angry and, upon her release the next morning, she contacted Kelsch and told him that she wanted to move forward with the plan.
“After Joyce gave to Ama a $200 down payment, he shot and killed Ralph Pettis on March 9, 1986.”
We reviewed the record before us and confirmed the facts set forth above.
3. Pettis’s Plea and Conviction
In March 1987, Joyce Pettis pleaded guilty to second degree murder and the trial court sentenced her to 16 years to life in prison.
4. Pettis’s Conduct in Prison Before July 31, 2008
In Pettis I, we described Pettis’s behavior in prison up until the July 31, 2008, Board hearing in the following way: “Pettis has been nothing short of a model prisoner. In the year since she was last denied parole, she has remained discipline free and has continued self-help programs. In addition, she has been doing clerical work for the Forestry Department. Both in the past and at the time of the hearing, she received ‘exceptional’ job ratings.
“With regard to education, Pettis received her GED in February of 1988. Since that time, she has worked at acquiring a vocation. She has completed courses in Office Services, Information Technology and Word Processing.
“Pettis has participated in several self-help programs. She has been and still is an active participant in the ‘Long-Termers Organization, ’ an organization that provides support for women serving lengthy or indefinite terms of confinement. In her file it is indicated that she has been ‘a member in good standing of the Long Termers’ Organization from January 2002.... She has shown herself to be very motivated, positive, and encouraging to the entire group. She has always been extremely pleasant and willing to participate. Joyce [s]hould be commended for the effort she has put forth into this program.’
“Pettis has also participated in a ‘ “Breaking Barriers” ’ seminar. Breaking Barriers is ‘[a] program which will provide her with the tools and alternatives necessary for changes. It prepares [an inmate] to make positive choices regarding her lifestyle both at CIW and on her re-entry into society.’ In her file it is indicated that Pettis should ‘be commended for her commitment and completion of the 40 hours training in the Breaking Barriers [P]rogram.’ In addition, Pettis has successfully participated in a ‘ “Victim Impact Seminar” ’ and a ‘Victim[’s] Services’ domestic abuse class.
“Perhaps most importantly, Pettis has been an active member of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and Al-Anon since 1988. She has memorized and lives by the 12-step program. She has not had an alcoholic beverage for 23 years. When one of the commissioners asked Pettis why she had not had an alcoholic beverage while in prison, Pettis responded, ‘Because I know why I’m here, I know what that would lead to.’ Although she suffered from symptoms of withdrawal, Pettis quit drinking ‘cold turkey.’
“With regard to discipline, Pettis has suffered ‘no 115[’]s at all while [she has] been incarcerated.’ She has one 128A which occurred on February 8, 1996 when she covered the vent in her cell. The commissioners noted that, for all intents and purposes, Pettis has been discipline free for her over 20 years of incarceration.
“Pettis’s latest psychological examination was performed in June 2008. The report indicated that she is ‘ “on the clinical and risk management scale which were in the low range. [Her] total score on the [relevant test] indicated that she has risk factors that place her in the low range for future violence.” ’ In addition, Pettis feels great remorse for her crime. She stated that ‘she wished [it] never happened and that she will have to live with it for the rest of her life.’ She told one prison psychologist, ‘ “I feel so bad about it. I took someone else’s life and I can’t change it. It’s with me everyday that it’s my fault that he’s dead.” ’ ”
We reviewed the record and confirmed the facts relating to Pettis’s conduct in prison up until July 31, 2008, as described in Pettis I.
5. July 31, 2008, Board Decision
On July 31, 2008, the Board held a parole hearing for Pettis. At the end of the hearing, the Board determined that Pettis was not suitable for parole.
6. Pettis’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Superior Court
On March 5, 2009, Pettis filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in Los Angeles County Superior Court challenging the Board’s July 31, 2008, decision. The superior court denied that petition on July 13, 2009.
7. Pettis I
On September 17, 2009, Pettis filed a petition for habeas corpus in this court challenging the Board’s July 31, 2008, decision. On March 2, 2010, we issued the opinion in Pettis I. There, we concluded our discussion of the merits of Pettis’s petition with this statement: “Review of the record before us reveals no evidence in support of the Board’s denial of parole. Pettis’s present mental state, her steller performance during her over 20 years of incarceration, her commitment to the Alcoholics Anonymous 12-step program, her feelings of remorse and her parole plans all lead to the conclusion that she is suitable for parole. Most importantly, at this point in her life Pettis poses no danger to public safety.” We thus granted the petition, reversed the Board’s July 31, 2008 decision, and remanded the matter to the Board for further proceedings.
8. Pettis’s Conduct in Prison After July 31, 2008
Since the Board’s July 31, 2008, hearing, Pettis has been a model prisoner. She received no discipline. She continued to participate in AA and NA. She began participating in the program that makes hats for terminally ill children.
A letter dated March 16, 2010, from a worker at the Forestry Department stated that Pettis “is an excellent worker with great work ethics.” The letter also stated: “It is my opinion that Ms. Pettis does not pose any threat to society. Without reservation, I’m sure that if she were to parole, she would go about her life as she does here, quietly and not getting caught up in any drama. In my discussions with Ms. Pettis over the years, I have seen remorse in her eyes, when she has discussed her crime. Although she has not gone into specifics with me, I have seen her emotion arise as she thinks back. I believe she has worked long and hard to work on becoming a better person, and that she has served enough time for her crime.”
Pettis also received letters from Crossroads, Inc. (Crossroads) and A New Way of Life Re-Entry Project (New Way). These letters indicated Crossroads and New Way are organizations that provide a place to live for paroled women with alcohol and drug problems, as well as programs for those problems, and that Pettis could live at Crossroads or New Way if she were released on parole.
Pettis received a psychological evaluation by prison psychologists dated April 30, 2010. The evaluation stated: “She [Pettis] clinically demonstrates good knowledge of her alcohol addiction and skills to remain abstinent. The inmate clinically appears to have adequately explored the commitment offense, developed adequate self-control and skill to peacefully solve interpersonal conflicts, maintain abstinence, and she appears able to maintain present gains if paroled into the community setting.”
With respect to the commitment offense, the evaluation quoted comments made by Pettis at an April 13, 2010 interview. Pettis stated, inter alia: “ ‘Yes, it is my fault Mr. Pettis is dead.... We were in an abusive relationship. We fought a lot. We both drank, but I abused alcohol.’ ” Pettis also explained: “ ‘Mr. Kelsch [was] my co-defendant. I got into a relationship with him. We drank and he and my husband argued a lot about different things. He saw my husband abuse me.... So, there was an animosity between Mr. Kelsch and Mr. Pettis. I can not [sic] remember if Mr. Kelsch brought up the idea of killing Mr. Pettis or if I did. He introduced me to the other co-defendant, Mr. Ama, and Mr. Ama said he wanted $1,000 to kill Mr. Pettis, so I paid him $200 down.’ ”
The evaluation further stated: “The inmate admits responsibility for the planning [of] the death of her husband. She did not appear to minimize her contributing actions leading to the commitment offense. The inmate demonstrated remorse for her crime and appears to understand the gravity of the harm she caused the victim, including the victim’s impacted family and her family. The inmate clinically demonstrated good understanding of the causative factors underlying the commitment offense, including her dependency issues.”
In conclusion, the evaluation stated: “This inmate presents with a clinically estimate low risk of violence in the prison setting and a low risk of violence in the community setting during parole compared to U.S. adult female offenders. The inmate presents with good understanding of her previous criminal and violent behavior, and her alcohol addiction. Continued participation in AA or related programs both during her incarceration, and in the community setting as a contingency... for parole is clinically suggested to facilitate relapse prevention.”
9. May 26, 2010, Board Decision
Pursuant to Pettis I, the Board held a parole hearing for Pettis on May 26, 2010. At that hearing, Pettis stated: “I take full responsibility [for the murder of Ralph Pettis.] It’s my fault that Mr. Pettis is dead. I’m deeply, deeply sorry for it.” Pettis further stated: “Twenty-four years ago my decisions caused the death of Ralph Pettis. I cannot change that. Not a day passes that I don’t think about the fact that Ralph Pettis is dead and it is my fault. Because of my excessive use of alcohol, abusive relationship, low self esteem, being in a bad environment and making wrong decisions, I took a life. This horrible fact will be with me for the rest of my life.” Pettis also indicated that she had never met her grandchildren but wanted to do so. The Board found Pettis suitable for parole.
After this appeal was filed, on April 25, 2011, the Board again found Pettis suitable for parole.
10. The Governor’s Reversal of the Board’s Decision
On October 22, 2010, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger reversed the Board’s May 26, 2010, decision. The Governor found that Pettis posed an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if released on parole.
He stated five main reasons for this finding. First, “the second-degree murder for which Pettis was convicted was especially heinous because her actions – hiring a man to shoot and kill her husband – involved significant premeditation.” Second, Pettis did not show adequate “insight” into her actions. Third, Pettis failed to show sufficient remorse for her crime. Fourth, although Pettis has maintained relationships with her friends, she has not maintained relationships with her family. Finally, Pettis’s claim that she was a victim of battered woman syndrome did not mitigate the nature and circumstances of the crime she committed.
Pettis, who is now 64 years old, filed an original petition for writ of habeas corpus in this court challenging the Governor’s October 22, 2010, decision.
ISSUE
The issue on appeal is whether some evidence supports the decision of the Governor that Pettis poses a current threat to public safety
DISCUSSION
1. We Consider Pettis’s Petition in the First Instance
Generally an inmate challenging the denial of parole must first file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court before filing such a petition in this court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.385, subd. (c)(2).) But in extraordinary situations we can exercise our constitutional prerogative to permit an inmate to file a petition challenging the denial of parole in this court without first litigating the matter in the trial court. (In re Kler (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1399, 1404 (Kler).) One such situation is where “the issues presented directly flow from our prior decision and the limited hearing conducted after our decision.” (Ibid.)
This case presents an extraordinary situation which permits Pettis to pursue her challenge to the Governor’s October 22, 2010, decision directly in this court without first making such a challenge in the trial court. In Pettis I we addressed very similar factual and legal issues presented by the current petition. Thus no court is better suited to first consider Pettis’s petition than this court.
2. General Legal Principles Applicable to Parole Cases
“ ‘Pursuant to statute, the Board “shall normally set a parole release date” one year prior to the inmate’s minimum eligible parole release date, and shall set the date “in a manner that will provide uniform terms for offenses of similar gravity and magnitude in respect to their threat to the public....” (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (a).)’ [Citation.] Release on parole is thus ‘the rule, rather than the exception.’ [Citation.] A parole release date must be set unless the Board determines that public safety requires a lengthier period of incarceration. [Citations].” (In re Aguilar (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1479, 1486 (Aguilar); In re Jackson (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1376, 1384.)
“Under article V, section 8, subdivision (b) of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 3041.2, the Governor has the right to review the Board’s parole suitability decisions relating to an inmate sentenced to an indeterminate prison term based upon a murder conviction. Although the Governor is required to review the same factors as the Board is required to consider, the Governor undertakes an independent, de novo review of the inmate’s suitability for parole.” (In re Masoner (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1531, 1536-1537, fn. omitted.)
In determining whether to grant an inmate parole the Board and Governor must consider certain circumstances specified by regulation tending to establish unsuitability and suitability for parole. “[U]nder the statute and the governing regulations, the circumstances of the commitment offense (or any of the other factors related to unsuitability) establish unsuitability if, and only if, those circumstances are probative of the determination that a prisoner remains a danger to the public. It is not the existence or nonexistence of suitability or unsuitability factors that forms the crux of the parole decision; the significant circumstance is how those factors interrelate to support a conclusion of current dangerousness to the public.” (Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1212.) “Accordingly, when a court reviews a decision of the Board or the Governor, the relevant inquiry is whether some evidence supports the decision of the Board or the Governor that the inmate constitutes a current threat to public safety, and not merely whether some evidence confirms the existence of certain factual findings.” (Ibid.)
“Circumstances tending to establish unsuitability for parole are 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. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2402, subd. (c); [Citation.]” (Aguilar, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1486-1487; accord In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181, 1202, fn. 7 (Lawrence).)
“Circumstances tending to show suitability for parole include that the inmate (1) does not possess a record of violent crime committed while a juvenile; (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 had built over a long period of time; (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 that suggest an enhanced ability to function within the law upon release. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2402, subd. (d); [Citation.]” (Aguilar, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 1487; accord In re Rosenkrantz (2002) 29 Cal.4th 616, 654.)
3. There is No Evidence That Pettis Poses a Current Danger to Public Safety
Pettis’s minimum eligible parole date was July 3, 1996. She has remained in prison almost 15 years after that date. The time has come to grant Pettis parole because there is no evidence she poses a current danger to public safety.
In her 25 years of incarceration Pettis has stayed virtually discipline free. She has also improved herself in many ways. Pettis obtained a GED and acquired marketable job skills. She has participated in AA since 1988and has stayed sober for a quarter century. Moreover, according to the most recent psychological evaluation, she has gained insight into her crime, she has shown remorse, and she presents a low risk of committing crime if released on parole. All of these facts, as well as her age, her pre-incarceration history, her reasonable parole plans, and her current mental state, indicate that Pettis is suitable for parole.
a. The Commitment Offense
As stated ante, the Governor gave five main reasons why he contends 64-year-old Pettis is currently dangerous. The first is that Pettis’s commitment offense was allegedly “especially heinous.” “[T]he relevant inquiry for a reviewing court is not merely whether an inmate’s crime was especially callous, or shockingly vicious or lethal, but whether the identified facts are probative to the central issue of current dangerousness when considered in light of the full record before the... Governor.” (Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1221.)
In Pettis I, we found that the commitment crime was not committed in “an especially heinous or atrocious manner.” Pettis argues that the Governor was not free to disregard this finding. We do not reach this issue because we hold that there is no evidence in the record before us that Pettis currently poses a danger to public safety.
Here, there is no evidence the nature of the commitment offense indicates that Pettis is currently dangerous. The murder was not, for example, part of a pattern of violent conduct over an extended period. Rather, the offense arose from the particular circumstances of Pettis’s life at the time—Pettis’s toxic and abusive relationship with the victim, her heavy drinking, and her clandestine affair with a co-defendant. There is a great deal of evidence that Pettis now has her alcoholism under control and no evidence to the contrary. Further, there is no evidence that Pettis will likely enter into a similarly abusive relationship if released on parole, nor any reason to believe that she will simultaneously have an affair. The circumstances of Pettis’s crime thus are not likely to recur. Accordingly, the nature of her commitment offense does not constitute some evidence that she is currently dangerous. (Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1226 [inmate’s premeditated murder of victim with gun and potato peeler does not indicate she is currently dangerous]; Aguilar, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 1489 [inmate’s murder of his wife by arson does not indicate he is currently dangerous].)
b. Pettis’s Alleged Lack of Insight Into Her Crime
The Governor contends that Pettis has failed to develop “adequate insight into her role in the life offense.” In support of this argument the Governor cited a 2006 parole consideration hearing, wherein Pettis maintained that, “ ‘on one hand she did not really believe it was going to happen; on the other hand, she didn’t really care.’ ” When Pettis made this statement, however, she was simply explaining her state of mind at the time of the homicide, not justifying it. The statement thus does not show that Pettis currently lacks insight into her crime. (Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1222-1223 [inmate’s statement about state of mind at the time of offense did not show that she currently lacked remorse].)
The Governor further contends that Pettis’s lack of insight was demonstrated by her failure to remember whether she or co-defendant Kelsch initially brought up the idea of killing the victim, as well as other details about the commitment offense. We reject this argument. It is undisputed that Pettis was heavily intoxicated on a regular basis at the time she and Kelsch planned the victim’s murder. Further, Pettis has repeatedly stated that regardless of who initially came up with the idea, she was fully responsible for the commitment offense. There is nothing in the record indicating Pettis has been insincere in her admission of guilt. Pettis’s failure to recall certain facts regarding the commitment offense—which occurred more than 25 years ago—does not constitute some evidence of her current dangerousness. (See In re Juarez (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1316, 1341 (Juarez) [inmate’s failure to remember details of commitment offense and previous crime had no bearing on his current dangerousness].)
c. Pettis’s Alleged Lack of Remorse
The Governor contends that Pettis is not genuinely remorseful for her role in the life offense. The sole basis for this contention is Pettis’s testimony during her 2009 Board hearing. The Governor alleges “Pettis mentioned that she had harmed the victim’s family and her own, but failed to account for the harm she caused her two co-defendants and their families.” This is not a fair reading of the record. At the 2009 Board hearing, Pettis was asked about her list of the people she harmed. In response she began to describe the people on her list, but before she could complete her answer, the Board moved on to another topic. There is no evidence in the record that Pettis lacks remorse for her crime.
The relevant portion of the transcript stated:
d. Pettis’s Lack of Family Ties
The fourth major reason the Governor gave for Pettis’s alleged current dangerousness is the fact that she has not maintained contact with her family. Pettis’s lack of family support was, in her words, one of the circumstances that led her to associate with the “wrong people, ” and thus contributed to the events that led to her crime. The Governor contends that “though this is an immutable historical factor... it remains predicative of current danger because by Pettis’ own understanding, her lack of social support precipitated her alcoholism, affair, and murder of her husband.”
An inmate’s relationship, if any, with her family outside of prison is not one of the circumstances specified by regulation tending to show an inmate’s suitability or unsuitability for parole. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2402, subds. (c) & (d).) Nonetheless, it can and should be considered in appropriate cases if it is relevant to the inmate’s current dangerousness. But it is a great leap to say that an inmate’s lack of family ties automatically makes her currently dangerous, no matter how long she has been incarcerated and no matter how much she changes as a person. Whether an inmate’s lack of family ties makes her currently dangerous must be decided “in light of the full record” (see Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1221) and under the “totality of the circumstances[.]” (Lawrence at p. 1230 (conc. opn. of Moreno, J.); In re Moses (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1279, 1308; Juarez, supra, 182 Cal.App.4th at p. 1337.)
Here, the Governor concedes that Pettis has maintained relationships with friends outside of prison. Further, several social service entities, including Crossroads, New Way, and the National Association of Social Workers have agreed to help her if and when she is released on parole. Most importantly, according to her psychological evaluations, work reports and other evidence in the record, over the past quarter century Pettis has developed marketable job skills and the tools to stay sober, avoid confrontation, and cope with stressful situations. Under the totality of the circumstances, there is no evidence that Pettis’s lack of family ties makes her currently dangerous to public safety.
The Governor’s reliance on In re Shippman (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 446 (Shippman) is misplaced. There, the evidence indicated that “(1) petitioner [the inmate] has a serious problem with wanting to maintain control over the women in his life; (2) this problem has repeatedly manifested itself in the form of emotional or physical abuse directed toward these women; (3) petitioner is not yet willing to take full responsibility for this pattern of abusive conduct; and (4) petitioner’s failure to take full responsibility for his abusive conduct indicates a lack of insight into the root causes of his crime.” (Id. at p. 460.) In other words, there was a nexus between the inmate’s unstable social history and his current dangerousness.
The present case is distinguishable. Pettis has recognized that her lack of family support was one of the reasons for her social instability and, moreover, has recognized and dealt with the most important root cause of her crime, namely her alcoholism. Unlike Shipmann, there is no nexus between Pettis’s lack of family ties and her current dangerousness. Shippman therefore lends no support to the Governor’s position.
e. Battered Woman Syndrome
Finally, the Governor stated that Pettis’s claim that she was a victim of battered woman syndrome was “undercut” by a 2001 report by the Board. The Governor further stated: “Even if Pettis experienced some abuse by Ralph, I believe that factor does not sufficiently mitigate the nature and circumstances of the crime she committed.”
We need not determine whether Pettis overstated the amount of domestic abuse she suffered. The issue has no connection to whether she poses a current danger to public safety. Pettis’s statements regarding her husband’s domestic abuse do not constitute some evidence of her current dangerousness.
In sum, there is no evidence that Pettis will pose a danger to public safety if she is released on parole. The Governor’s reversal of the Board’s decision granting Pettis parole was therefore contrary to the law of this state.
DISPOSITION
Pettis’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted, the Governor’s October 22, 2010, decision is vacated, and the Board’s May 26, 2010, decision to grant Pettis parole is reinstated. In the interests of justice, this opinion is made final as to this court three days from the date of filing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.387(b)(3)(A).)
We concur: KLEIN, P. J., ALDRICH, J.
“Presiding Commissioner Doyle: Did you ever make a list [of the people you have harmed]? “Inmate Pettis: Yes, I did. “ Presiding Commissioner Doyle: Who’s on that list? “Inmate Pettis: The first people on the list is the Pettis family. “Presiding Commissioner Doyle: Okay. “Inmate Pettis: My family was under it. I would like to say that I didn’t write to them because – “Presiding Commissioner Doyle: That’s understandable. I know they want you to, you know, even if you don’t send it, it’s kind of helpful to write a letter. “Inmate Pettis: I did, -- “Presiding Commissioner Doyle: Okay. “Inmate Pettis -- and then I tore it up. “Presiding Commissioner Doyle: Commissioner, do you have any other questions? “Deputy Commissioner Mora: No, sir.”