From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Sheridan

California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division
Mar 27, 2008
No. B204314 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2008)

Opinion


In re JAMES J. SHERIDAN, On Habeas Corpus. B204314 California Court of Appeal, Second District, First Division March 27, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

PETITION for a writ of habeas corpus following order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Super. Ct. No. BH004858 Steven R. Van Sicklen, Judge.

James J. Sheridan, pro. per., and Nancy L. Tetreault, 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, Assistant Attorney General, Heather Bushman and Gregory J. Marcot, Deputy Attorneys General, for Respondent.

VOGEL, Acting P.J.

In 1985, James Sheridan was convicted of one count of second degree murder and one count of assault with a deadly weapon, and sentenced to state prison for a term of 20 years to life. In 2007, the Board of Parole Hearings found that Sheridan was not suitable for parole, primarily because his parole plans were inadequate. Sheridan challenges that decision by a petition for habeas corpus, contending the Board’s decision is not supported by any evidence. Although it is a close case, we find some evidence to support the Board’s decision and therefore deny the petition.

FACTS

A. The Commitment Offense

“[Sheridan knew] the murder victim, Al Irom, . . . for some time prior to the killing. Irom had lived with [Sheridan] for two months following Irom’s release from jail, but had moved out three weeks before he was killed. Irom was a cocaine dealer, and both he and [Sheridan] used and sold cocaine. [¶] An argument over [the] use of [Sheridan’s] apartment led to Irom’s leaving [and] rent[ing] a room in a house owned by Pam Ames . . ., a friend of [Sheridan’s]. Also renting a room in the house was Robert Matlock . . ., the assault victim.

“One or two days before the [murder, at which time Sheridan was on probation for a drug offense], an armed robbery took place at the Ames house; Irom claimed [Sheridan] had something to do with the robbery and [said] he wanted to get even with [Sheridan]. [Sheridan] heard about the robbery from a friend [and] telephoned Irom to find out about it. Irom accused [Sheridan] of setting up the robbery and said he was going to ‘get’ [Sheridan]. [Sheridan] asked Irom to come to his house to discuss it but Irom refused, wanting [Sheridan] to come to him [and] they did not get together. [¶] [Sheridan] thought Irom had arranged the robbery himself[] in order to avoid paying people to whom he owed money. Irom had told [Sheridan] he previously set up a phony robbery to avoid paying for drugs . . . .

“After he spoke with Irom, [Sheridan] received a telephone call from a woman named Lisa [who] subsequently came to his apartment accompanied by two armed men [who] said they wanted their goods back and were going to find out what was going on and take appropriate action. [Sheridan] felt threatened, and he felt Irom was setting him up on the streets as a ‘fall guy’ for the robbery.

“[Sheridan] telephoned Ames to talk about the robbery; she said she would find out about it [and] then go to his apartment to tell him what she learned. [Sheridan], upset, did not want to wait for her. After speaking with her, [Sheridan] received a threatening telephone call. [¶] [Sheridan] had a rifle which he had purchased and kept in his closet. When the trouble with Irom started, he put the gun under his couch in case problems arose; he assumed it was loaded. After receiving the threatening call, [Sheridan] took the gun and went to Ames’ house to confront Irom; he did not intend to shoot Irom, but he wanted to straighten things out and was going to threaten Irom so Irom would leave him alone.

“At Ames’ house that afternoon, June 23, 1984, Robert Marry . . . was doing some repair work. He went to his automobile for some tools[, saw Sheridan] drive up on a motorcycle[, saw that Sheridan] had something concealed under his jacket[, and watched as Sheridan] almost lost control of the motorcycle when he tried to catch something. To Marry, [Sheridan] looked strange--nervous and distraught and like he had not slept for awhile.

“Marry walked back to the house, and [Sheridan] yelled for Marry to ‘hold it.’ [Marry, while walking to the door, asked Sheridan what he wanted. As Marry approached the front door, Sheridan] asked whether Irom was there; Marry said he did not know and would check. [Sheridan] asked Marry to hold the door, but Marry went inside, closed and locked the door. [¶] Marry walked down the hallway to Irom’s room and told him there was a ‘guy out front on a Harley [who] wants to talk to you.’ At the same time, there was a loud bang, then the front door came crashing in [and Marry saw Sheridan walking down] the hallway, carrying the rifle by his side, then swinging it out to point forward.

“At the [sound of the] crash, Irom had left his room and entered the hallway, standing next to Marry. Ames, too, was in the hallway. [Sheridan] yelled at Ames to get out of the way and fired a shot into the floor to scare Ames and Marry so they would go away; Ames went into the bathroom and shut the door behind her. She then went into her bedroom so she could get out of the house if necessary; she did not see the shooting. Marry also went into the bedroom; he could see Irom, but not [Sheridan].

“[Sheridan] accused Irom of trying to set him up and threatened to shoot [him] if he did not leave [Sheridan] alone. According to Marry, Irom threw his arms in the air and yelled, ‘What are you going to do? You going to shoot someone? You going to shoot me? Come on. You going to shoot someone?’ According to Ames, Irom responded to [Sheridan’s] threat, ‘Then shoot me then.’ [Sheridan] fired; the shot hit Irom, who fell to the floor holding his side.

“[Sheridan] headed toward the living room, where Robert Matlock had been sleeping on a couch. Matlock yelled out that he did not have a gun. [Sheridan] said, ‘Who do we have out here? Matlock,’ then fired a shot in Matlock’s direction. Matlock dove off the couch and onto the floor and was not hit. [Sheridan] told Matlock to call an ambulance [because] he had just shot Irom. He then left the house. About two days later, [Sheridan] telephoned Matlock and said he had missed him on purpose.” (People v. Sheridan (June 30, 1986, B016095) [nonpub opn.]; People v. Sheridan (Nov. 6, 1987, B026162) [nonpub. opn.].) Irom died on the way to the hospital.

Sheridan was apprehended within days after the shooting. He was charged with one count of first degree murder and one count of assault with a deadly weapon, both with allegations that he had personally used a firearm. He was convicted of second degree murder and the assault, with the firearm allegations found true, and (following our remand for re sentencing) sentenced to state prison for a term of 20 years to life, with a minimum parole eligibility date of October 10, 1996. We affirmed in the opinions cited in the preceding paragraph.

B. The Parole Board Hearing

Sheridan appeared before the Board of Parole Hearings on May 16, 2007, by which time he was 59 years old and had been incarcerated for 22 years. During that time, he received only two “115’s” (the most recent in 1993) and eleven “128 counseling chronos” (for smoking, tardiness, and similar issues), the most recent in 1999.

According to the California Code of Regulations, a “CDC 115” documents misconduct believed to be a violation of law (something that is not minor in nature), whereas a “CDC Form 128-A” documents incidents of minor misconduct. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3312, subds. (a)(2), (a)(3); In re Gray (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 379, 389; In re Bettencourt (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 780, 789, fn. 3.)

The Psychological Report .

Sheridan’s 2006 psychological report explains that his parents are deceased, and that his siblings live in Pennsylvania (where Sheridan was born). He has no family in California. Although he was addicted to drugs at the time of the commitment offense (he was freebasing cocaine), he has been involved in both AA and NA during the years of his incarceration and is still involved with both groups (and never used drugs during that time). He has no physical or mental health problems. In the words of the report:

“Mr. Sheridan has a current classification score of 19, which is due to his lifer status. He has not had any disciplines for over 10 years and the last discipline that he had was for a counseling issue. He has never been involved in any substance abuse or violence towards staff or other inmates. He has demonstrated a sustained level of impulse control over the course of many years. Mr. Sheridan’s been involved in a number of prosocial [sic] activities. He has upgraded vocationally and has continued to be involved in both upgrading his educational level as well as working in the prison industries on a regular and consistent basis.”

With regard to the issue of dangerousness, the psychological report states: “Mr. Sheridan . . . has no history of criminality prior to his cocaine dependence and there is nothing to indicate antisocial or psychopathology prior to his life crime. His commitment offense appears to be an aberration caused by the natural progression of a serious cocaine addiction and the elements involved e.g. loss of inhibition, poor impulse control, distortions in thinking process, negative affiliations, etc.

“Subsequent to his incarceration, Mr. Sheridan appears to have gained a great deal of insight and understanding of the factors leading up to his commitment offense and has endeavored to position himself in such a way as to guard against relapse. He has made other appropriate personal, social, and behavioral adjustments in this institutional setting, also such as, his involvement in self help and prosocial [sic] activities, educational and vocational upgrades, and a high sustained level of impulse control. He has consistently expressed remorse and shame regarding his commitment offense and has never denied culpability. As such, there is a high reasonable probability that Mr. Sheridan’s level of dangerousness is minimal, much less than that of the average inmate incarcerated here at CSP Solano, and consistent with that of other inmates who have committed similar offenses and have had successful paroles in the community.” (Emphasis added.)

Walden House .

The documents presented to the Board included a letter from the Director of Criminal Justice-In custody Programs at Walden House Inc. confirming that Sheridan had been “found to be an acceptable candidate for entry into the Walden House Substance Abuse Residential Program upon his release.” The letter explains that, for 35 years, Walden House has been an “alternative sentencing option for persons with case histories similar to that of Mr. Sheridan,” and that the program had a “large degree of success . . . .” The letter continues:

“In addition Walden House is in the position to assist Mr. Sheridan with employment placement as we have been recognized and awarded in partnership with the Los Angeles Workforce Investment Board and Employability Partnership. Walden House has an excellent history of assisting and placing ex-offenders in employment in the greater Los Angeles area through our vocational and employment department.

“Walden House is a highly structured environment designed to handle other in-depth clinical issues surrounding behavior, coping mechanisms, emotional expression, and the disabling effect of addiction. We offer a full continuum of managed health care to people with drugs, alcohol, and a criminal past history. Mental health is fostered through group therapy and individual psychotherapy. We also provide legal advocacy services, education and vocational training.”

According to its website (http://www.waldenhouse.org/services/ reentry.html [as of Mar. 24, 2008]), the “goal of [Walden House’s] Employment Services component is not only to help clients find employment, but also to teach our clients the skills they will need to conduct successful job searches throughout their lives. Through a series of workshops and one on one meetings, clients learn the skills necessary to develop and carry out a successful job search. Some of these workshops and meetings include job seeking skills, interviewing skills, mock interviews, resume and cover letter writing, learning about applications, career counseling, and a daily motivational morning meeting.”

Sheridan told the Board that Walden House would provide no-cost housing for him for up to eight months, and longer if he could not find employment (as he put it, “Walden House doesn’t permit you to leave or won’t allow you to leave . . . until you have employment, until you are able to stand on your own feet”). Sheridan told the Board that Walden House would “pick [him] up at the gate,” “supply [him] with a sponsor” if he needs one, and “guide [him] through [his] reentry into society. . . .”

Employment Skills .

While in prison, Sheridan was certified by the American College of Opticianry as a Certified Optician (2006), and he obtained a Certificate of Completion for a vocational education program in eyewear manufacturing from the Vaca Valley Adult School (2006). During the earlier years of his incarceration, Sheridan worked for 14-1/2 years as crew foreman in the sausage department of the Mule Creek State Prison (and in 1998 obtained a Certificate of Achievement from the Creekside Adult School in wholesale meat processing (sausage)). In 1998 and 1999, Sheridan completed programs administered by the California State University, Sacramento, in the operation of wastewater treatment plants and advanced waste treatment. Although Sheridan had sent out more than 40 resumes and letters seeking employment, he had not received any replies.

Community Contacts .

At Sheridan’s hearing, he explained to the Board that he had an adult daughter from a prior marriage but had lost contact with her, and that he had no contact with his siblings (none of whom live in California). He explained that he did not want to contact his former friends because they had introduced him to drugs, but would at some point obtain permission to visit Philadelphia in search of his siblings.

When asked about his parole plans, Sheridan told the Board he would find a job, and after leaving Walden House would find an apartment and live a “quiet life.” He intends to continue his membership with Narcotics Anonymous for the rest of his life. He explained: “I’d like to find a job that’s able to pay the bills. I plan to attend a lot of NA meetings, not just for the fact that it’ll keep me sober, but also as a social network. I understand that that’s an excellent social network when meeting people, especially after I’ve been incarcerated for such a long period of time . . . .”

C. The Board’s Decision Denying Parole

The Board concluded that Sheridan was not suitable for parole, and “would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society or a threat to the public if released,” explaining its decision thus:

“We have a couple of concerns about you . . . . Primarily we have issues with your parole plans. And you’re probably getting tired of hearing that, but you’ve got to really focus on this. I’m going to try to help you out here as much as I can. . . . [¶] Walden House is a good place for you to start. I think it will provide you with some excellent services. Problem is, you don’t have any idea what you’re going to do when you walk out of Walden House. And what we’re concerned about is six months is not a very long time or even eight, if it stretches that far, to get you acclimated after 22 years in custody.

“I think that you’ve done a lot of really good stuff in the institution. But I’m not so sure how much of the self-help you’ve taken is transferred from your head intellectually to your heart and to your gut. You don’t have a lot of community resources. You don’t have a support system. You have alienated yourself from everybody. You can’t do this process alone.

“. . . I need to go through this decision thing, but I’m going to give you some specific suggestions of what to do to prepare yourself. But you really, really, really need to take a look deep inside of you because you can’t stand alone. You’ve put yourself in a very vulnerable position and you’ve got to build a bridge between this prison and the community. In fact, I think the words I wrote down [were] community linking. It’s being and providing yourself with as many tools as you humanly can. [¶] When you walk outside of Walden House someday, if you don’t have that community linking and you get disappointed because you didn’t get that job you wanted or because somebody better came along or somebody found out you were a parolee or a felon or whatever, you’re right about those stressors, sir.

“I want to talk about the commitment offense. Basically we have been through it very thoroughly. I think you were pretty factual with us today about the circumstances. This was a drug murder. You put yourself in a horrible position by being under the influence. You indicated to us you’d been freebasing cocaine. You’d been doing it for quite some time. You were addicted. You admit that to us freely.

“But you were also on probation at the time and you had a weapon. All of those traces were very bad. So you armed yourself with a weapon and walked into a man’s home who you felt somewhat unsure of. You said you were paranoid and ended up shooting him. Not only shooting and killing him, but there was another victim and that was the person that you shot at and fortunately missed. [¶] . . . There were multiple victims that were attacked. . . . This offense demonstrated exceptionally callous disregard for human suffering. And I’m not sure what the motive for the crime was other than I think you felt at the time that you needed to take care of Mr. Irom before he took care of you. That’s basically how I’m viewing that.

“The conclusions were drawn from the [s]tatement of [f]acts that came from the [a]ppellate [c]ourt ruling filed on June 30, 1986, pages two through six. Your prior record is not a serious one. What’s good for you is that you have no juvenile priors. You have one where you got caught in a car with somebody that had drugs. I think that was probably one of the beginnings of your starting to hang around the party crowd, as you called it. [¶] Then you were placed on probation for possession of narcotics in 1983 and that’s when this commitment offense happened in 1984. [¶] You do not have an unstable social history, other than the fact that I’m at a total loss as to why you’ve broken all bonds with your family. . . .

“Your institutional behavior has been pretty darn good. . . . I do want to address that you’ve had two 115s, the last in ’93, and you’ve had 11128s, the last in ’99 for smoking. . . .

“Your psychological was completed . . . in January of ’06. [Dr. Rouse] gave you a global assessment functioning score of 90. What that means is good. It means that out of up to 100 is the highest, so he gave you basically how you would behave in the community would be about an A minus, as long as you didn’t go back to drugs and you had a good support system. Also indicated you were a low risk category. [¶] We are going to recommend a new psychological evaluation for you, even though this is only a year old. It’ll be two years old and we don’t want to hang up any progress that you may be making between now and then with regards to some of the issues we’re going to address.

“Parole plans. Get a new letter from the Walden House to support you prior to your next hearing. What you need to give the next parole Panel, if it’s not us, is you need to deal with some long term goals. You need to do that community bridging. Connect with Friends Outside. Have them start doing some leg work for you. Find out safe communities where you can live in. Find out and write out a budget. What’s it going to take you to survive when you get out of Walden House. [¶] Walden House is going to be like a cocoon. Eventually you have to leave. You need to have a direction, you know. I know you said that you’re a simple man and you’re not wanting to recreate the world. Stressors are finding a home, getting a job, developing relationships.

“You know, part of the 12-step program is learning how to give back to the community. Start thinking about how you’re going to give back to the community. You can’t undo Mr. Irom’s death, but you can be doing some good on his behalf. [¶] But so far, you’ve isolated yourself terribly from all support systems. And that is a concern to us. [¶] I told you . . . the DA from LA County is in opposition at this time.

“I do want to talk about, because your programming has been exceptional, you are a certified meat cutter and a journeyman sausage maker. You’ve received numerous, numerous laudatory chronos in that arena. You’ve completed over 3,000 hours worth of work. You passed the ABO through the optical lab program. [¶] Those are two excellent vocations that you should at least be able to have received something that says we’ll be happy to interview you because of your credentials. So you’ve got to take a look at working with [groups] like the Friends Outside who know people who know people who know people that help you pave a way ahead of time.

“Mr. Sheridan, you kind of like made yourself an island here and now you’ve got to get some boats going in the water, you know, to kind of help you get out there. You’ve got work experience in the dining room and as a cook. You have most recently participated in eight classes and received certificates in the waste water management program. You’ve been a continuous member of NA as well as Chairperson for that program since you’ve been incarcerated. [¶] You’ve done a . . . very good variety of self-help programs that [we] listed off earlier, as well you are currently participating in the SAP program. Please stay in that program. Talk with them about how you might bridge that gap between here and the community and about how you might make connections ahead of time . . . . [¶] . . . [¶] . . .

“You also have received a chrono with regards to you being a positive asset in the SAP program. You know, you are doing a good job, but like I said, no man is an island . . . . [¶] We want to be assured because you have no support system that you start developing one and you, whether it’s a sponsor from NA on the outside, something that shows that when the going gets hard, you’ve got somebody there to fall on, lean [on], cry on their shoulder, whatever. Because the world isn’t like it was 22 years ago. Not even close.” (Emphasis added.)

Sheridan responded, explaining that he would get involved in a prison training program for drug counselors but noting, with regard to the suggestion that he had to find a sponsor, that he “went down that road before” but would try again and would take the Board’s “words to heart.”

D.

By a pro se petition for habeas corpus, Sheridan challenged the Board’s decision but the trial court denied the petition, finding some evidence to support the Board’s decision that Sheridan presents an unreasonable risk of danger to society and is thus not suitable for release on parole. More specifically, the court found that although there is no evidence to support the Board’s finding that the commitment offense was carried out in a manner demonstrating an exceptionally callous disregard for human suffering (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2402, subd. (c)(1)(D)), there is some evidence that Sheridan failed to profit from previous attempts to correct his criminality (he was on probation at the time of the commitment offense), evidence that the offense involved multiple victims, and some evidence that he “lacks sufficient parole plans” because he has no employment offers. As the trial court put it, “[w]hile the lack of sufficient parole plans by itself may not justify finding [Sheridan] unsuitable for release, the Board may properly consider this a relevant factor in making its determination.” (Id., § 2402, subd. (b).)

Sheridan then filed the pro se habeas petition now before us, in response to which we issued an order to show cause and appointed counsel to represent Sheridan in these proceedings.

DISCUSSION

Although this is a close case, we are compelled by the “some evidence” standard to agree with the trial court that the Board’s decision must be upheld.

A.

Although an inmate serving an indeterminate sentence becomes eligible for parole upon completion of his minimum term of confinement (In re Dannenberg (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1061, 1078), the decision whether to grant parole is up to the Board (Pen. Code, §§ 3040, 5075), which must in the exercise of its discretion conduct a “deliberate assessment of a wide variety of individualized factors on a case-by-case basis [in order to strike] a balance between the interests of the inmate and of the public.” (In re Powell (1988) 45 Cal.3d 894, 902). Under the mandate of section 3041, the Board must set a parole release date unless it determines that the inmate is presently unsuitable for parole because public safety requires a longer period of incarceration. (See also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2402, subd. (a) [“Regardless of the length of time served, a life prisoner shall be found unsuitable for and denied parole if in the judgment of the [Board] the prisoner will pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released from prison”].)

Undesignated section references are to the Penal Code, except that all references to section 2402 are to that section of title 15 of the California Code of Regulations.

To assess whether a life prisoner will pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released from prison, the Board considers suitability and unsuitability factors. Suitability factors include (1) the absence of a juvenile record, (2) a stable social history, (3) signs of remorse, (4) the motivation for the crime was significant life stress, (5) battered woman syndrome, (6) no history of violent crime, (7) age, (8) realistic plans for the future, and (9) institutional behavior. (§ 2402, subd. (d).) Unsuitability factors include (1) whether the commitment offense was committed “in an especially heinous, atrocious or cruel manner,” (2) a previous record of violence, (3) an unstable social history, (4) sadistic sexual offenses, (5) psychological factors, and (6) serious misconduct while incarcerated. (§ 2402, subd. (c).)

B.

The Board’s discretion is broad and our review of its decisions must be deferential, so that we must affirm its decision if it is supported by “some evidence”--which is nothing more than “a modicum of evidence.” (In re Rosenkrantz (2002) 29 Cal.4th 616, 658; In re Dannenberg, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 1095.) Thus, the standard is “not whether some evidence supports the reasons [the Board] cites for denying parole, but whether some evidence indicates a parolee’s release unreasonably endangers public safety. [Citations.] Some evidence of the existence of a particular factor does not necessarily equate to some evidence that the parolee’s release unreasonably endangers public safety.” (In re Lee (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1408-1409, italics in original.)

In short, the only issue before us is whether some evidence supports the Board’s decision.

C.

It is undisputed that Sheridan was on probation at the time of the commitment offense, that there were multiple victims, and that his parole plans are limited to his acceptance at Walden House. The Board’s stated concerns--that Sheridan has no family, friends, or other contacts for support, and that he has no job offers--are supported by the record. Although Sheridan has sent out more than 40 resumes in search of employment, he has not received any offers at all, notwithstanding the significant skills he has acquired while incarcerated. If he is unable to find work during the six- or eight-month period of his residency at Walden House, he has no support group to turn to for assistance. In short, there is some evidence that Sheridan will pose an unreasonable risk of danger to the public if he is paroled at this time. (In re Rosenkrantz, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 658; In re Honesto (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 81, 97.)

Because we find a factual basis for the Board’s decision without reference to the commitment offense, we need not consider whether the Board’s reliance on the facts underlying the commitment offense is appropriate.

As noted, this is a close case. Although the commitment offense was certainly a terrible crime, as is any murder, it was not committed in a more aggravated or violent manner than other second degree murders, and there was nothing exceptionally callous about Sheridan’s actions. In addition, he has been a model prisoner and has been accepted into a recognized rehabilitation program. We therefore assume that Sheridan’s compliance with the Board’s demands vis-à-vis his parole plans, and his continuing exemplary behavior, will lead the Board to set a parole date at Sheridan’s next hearing.

DISPOSITION

The petition is denied.

We concur: ROTHSCHILD, J., JACKSON, J.

Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.


Summaries of

In re Sheridan

California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division
Mar 27, 2008
No. B204314 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2008)
Case details for

In re Sheridan

Case Details

Full title:In re JAMES J. SHERIDAN, On Habeas Corpus.

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division

Date published: Mar 27, 2008

Citations

No. B204314 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2008)