ECC NEWSLETTER #8 SEPTEMBER 2013 JUSTICE FOR ALL …eccherchandlerconsulting.com/uploads/ECC_8.pdf · ECC NEWSLETTER #8 SEPTEMBER 2013 JUSTICE FOR ALL Page-2 HELPING EVERYONE REGARDLESS

ECC NEWSLETTER #8 SEPTEMBER 2013

JUSTICE FOR ALL

Page-1

HELPING EVERYONE REGARDLESS ECC, 532 N. MAGNOLIA AVE. #333, ANAHEIM, CA 92801

$ means these court orders are available to purchase for U.S. currency or stamps. See last page for details.

GREAT NEWS FOR $SB-260 YOUTH OFFENDER PAROLE HEARING

On September 16, 2013, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 260, a measure that allows inmates whose crimes

were committed as minors to appear before the Board of Parole Hearings to demonstrate their suitability for

release after serving at least 15 years of their sentence. The law will affect more than 5,000 California inmates

and directs the Board to give “great weight to the diminished culpability of juveniles” and to consider evidence

of their maturity and rehabilitation in prison. The history of this landmark bill follows: In March, 2013

California Senator Loni Hancock introduced a bill that would give a second chance to most people who were

under the age of 18 at the time of their crime, tried as an adult and sentenced to an adult prison sentence. SB-

260 holds young people responsible for the crimes they committed, but it recognizes that youth are different

from adults and gives them a chance to demonstrate remorse and rehabilitation. This bill would hold young

people accountable by requiring a lengthy minimum prison sentence, but provide people who were under the

age of 18 at the time of their crime an opportunity to work toward rehabilitation and the possibility of a lower

sentence. It establishes a parole process with different criteria. If passed, the Board will be required to review

the cases of people who were youth at the time of their crime and look at them differently than it does people

who were adults. On May 28, 2013, SB-260 was passed by the Senate with bi-partisan support by a 27:11 vote.

On July 2, 2013, it passed the Public Safety Committee by a 4:2 vote. On September 6, 2013, the California

Assembly members voted to pass SB-260 but it was not easy. The vote was 51:21. Richard Bloom, an

Assembly member from District 50, Santa Monica-D, explained the bill. It started about 2:10 PM and lasted

until 3 PM. This writer, (Red/Gary) watched it live online. Many Assembly members spoke for and against

this bill. The cons were that the Governor and the Courts currently have the power to change unconstitutional

sentences within our justice system for juveniles so why the need for SB-260. The pro side provided a situation

where a car full of high school kids driving around and one person fires a shot out of the car and kills someone

then every person in that car could potentially be charged with murder and sentenced accordingly. That was the

exception to the rule regarding why SB-260 needed to be passed. Giving juveniles an opportunity to show

remorse and rehabilitation before the Board after serving a long sentence was the hallmark of the bill. Equally

compelling, there is no guarantee, as we all know, that parole will be granted. This bill only provides for a

Youth Offender Parole Hearing. Specifically, this bill requires: 1) A person, whose longest sentence is a

determinant sentence, (e.g., 30-years) would be eligible to be considered for parole after serving 15 years in

prison; 2) A person, whose longest sentence is less than 25 years to life, would be eligible to be considered for

parole after serving 20 years in prison; 3) A person, whose longest sentence is 25 years to life, would be eligible

to be considered for parole after serving 25 years in prison. This bill preserves the constitutional rights of

victims under Marsy’s law. This bill excludes individuals sentenced to life without the possibility of parole and

sentenced under Three Strikes law. Stay tuned for the implementation of this bill.

IN RE JOE INMATE UPDATE

(ACTUALLY INNOCENT OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER AND ROBBERY) A week-long evidentiary hearing has been scheduled starting October 25

th in Superior Court where Keith will

have to testify, in the innocence petition of an ECC Client who wishes to remain nameless. If we can prevail, a

three and a half decade long nightmare could finally be over for this person and his family. A ruling from the

Court is expected before Thanksgiving. Hopefully we can report the good news in our November Newsletter.

In any event, this case should make headline news in California when it breaks.


JUSTICE FOR ALL

Page-2



FOLSOM D’S BIRTHDAY PARTY A few of us got together for Darryl (Folsom D) Davis B-day party. It was great fun and the pic we took might

bring back memories for a few of the fellas. D’s family was awesome, and the food was slammin’, particularly

Bruce (Pappy) White’s Louisiana Potato Salad. Great stories, memories of those we have lost including

Geronimo Pratt and Wolf O’Sullivan, just an amazing night. In the pic, (in the front) Demetrius (Flip) Daniel.

Front Row (L to R) Kevin (Warlock) Penn, Keith Chandler, and Chris Fowler. Back Row (L to R) Lamont

McBroom, Mike Hamilton, Keith Wagoner, Mike Quarterman, Darryl (Folsom D) Davis, Rod Dyson (peeking

out in the back) Bruce (Pappy) White, and Paul Brar.

ADVERTISING RATES AND INFORMATION Anyone can advertise in the ECC Newsletter. If you are interested in the rates, please just call, mail, or

email us. We will be glad to send you a copy of our advertising rates and get you started.


JUSTICE FOR ALL

Page-3



DEVIN OTTE’S BIRTHDAY PARTY A few of us got together for Devin Otte’s 44

th B-day party. We decided to make a pic with all of us making

funny faces. It was great fun and Devin’s family and friends were awesome. The food was great and Devin

even made a dip that actually tasted good and not like prison food. LOL. It was great to see Devin’s wife

Colleen because her dream came true. She stood by her man’s side for many years. She visited on weekends.

Much love and respect Colleen. We told more stories that day than Reader’s Digest. In the pic from Left to

Right, Gary-Red-Eccher, Devin Otte, Ron Zych, Thanh Nguyen, Paul Gaul the Golden Goose, and Rob Miller.

ECC AIDS THREE STRIKERS GAIN RELEASE

ECC client Adam Parsons was released from Solano after his 25 year to life term was reduced

and he was released with no parole. (See ECC Newsletter #7 for details on his case.) HDSP’s

Daniel Newsom, another ECC client, has won a three strike life term re-sentencing and has been

released from both prison and parole.


JUSTICE FOR ALL

Page-4



ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (OSC) CORNER

AND INFORMAL RESPONSE (IR) ORDERS

This corner is intended to list OSC’s and IR’s across the

state to help keep hope alive for prisoners. If you would

like your OSC or IR listed in the ECC, just send us a copy

and short summary of the proceeding. All OSC’s and

IR’s in bold type are the help of ECC.

MICHAEL CARL DEAKINS (OSC) (2012) C.D.Cal.

Criminal conviction actually innocent. Waiting decision.

IN RE JOE INMATE (OSC) (2013) L.A. Cty. Criminal

conviction actually innocent after 34-years. (See ECC

Newsletter #5 & #6.) See front page of this newsletter for

update. You do not want to miss this one.

IN RE PAUL CROWDER (IR) (2013) 4 Dist. Div.3

Governor’s Reversal. All briefing is complete. We are

still waiting for a decision in either one of two actions

pending before the 4th

District that could free Moose.

IN RE JASON MAHONEY (OSC) (2013) C.D. Cal.

Criminal conviction.

HELP KEEP HOPE ALIVE

Serena Faye Salinas, Attorney At Law

Zealously Advocating For Your Legal Needs

Parole Suitability Hearings, Writs, & Prop. 36.

www.SerenaSalinasLaw.com

Law Office of Serena Salinas

8837 Villa La Jolla Drive, #13562

La Jolla, CA 92039

Tel: 619.800.4864

ALEXANDRA MORGAN Law Office of Alexandra Morgan

Parole Suitability Hearings, Writs, and Prop. 36

REASONABLE FEES

DISCOUNT FOR CIM

(714) 844-3118 [email protected]

160 Centennial Way Ste. 6, Tustin, CA 92780

ECCHER &

CHANDLER

CONSULTING

HELPING

EVERYONE

REGARDLESS

GARY ECCHER &

KEITH CHANDLER

532 N. MAGNOLIA AVE. #333

ANAHEIM, CA 92801

PHONE: (714) 381-0694 (Gary)

(916) 869-1156 (Keith)

EMAIL: [email protected]

[email protected]

www.eccherchandlerconsulting.com

HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONS

V. BOARD & GOVERNOR & CDC

CRIMINAL MATTERS

SENTENCING ERRORS

PLEA BARGAINS

INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

BOARD & PSYCH PREPARATIONS

3-STRIKES PETITION TO RECALL SENTENCE

BPH 1045A PETITION TO ADVANCE HEARING

CDC-602 APPEALS

WE ARE NOT ATTORNEYS

mailto:[email protected]



http://www.eccherchandlerconsulting.com/


JUSTICE FOR ALL

Page-5



Eccher & Chandler Consulting (ECC) Newsletter is

published to provide everything from A to Z in prison

news from pre-post-conviction, to parole and life

thereafter. Our specialty is indeterminate life sentences.

In short, LIFERS-R-US, however, we help everyone

regardless. The ECC is not intended as legal advice, but

provides prison legal news, articles, comments, and the

like. This information is the opinion of the Editors of the

ECC, unless otherwise indicated. We are not attorneys.

The ECC is authored, published, and circulated by Gary

Eccher and Keith Chandler the partners in Eccher &

Chandler Consulting, 532 N. Magnolia Ave. #333,

Anaheim, CA 92801. Gary Eccher (AKA, Red or

Reddog) a former lifer who obtained his parole through

the courts after successfully litigating his own case

against the Board of Parole Hearings (Board) and

Governor. Gary/Red obtained two paralegal degrees

while incarcerated and worked for approximately 10-

years in the law library at Old Folsom. He also worked

for approximately 10-years as a disciplinary clerk at Old

Folsom and Avenal. During Gary/Red’s prison term, he

helped many lifers obtain their freedom through the courts

or by consulting with them on strategy to be employed

during their parole hearings. A list of 34-granted writs of

habeas corpus follows. 15-guys released.

Jimmie Sole (2001) Sonoma County (Cty.) v. Board

Javier Cortinas (2002) Santa Clara Cty. v. Board

David “Benny” Taylor (2003) Santa Clara Cty. v. Board

released 1-2004

$Miguel “Rooster” Martin (2004) Sacramento Cty. v.

Board (Restraint Policy Ruled Underground Reg.)

$Gary Eccher (2004) Orange Cty. v. Board


$Julian Moreno (2008) L.A. Cty. v. Governor released 1-

2009 $Paul Gaul (2009) CA2/7 v. Board 170 Cal.App.4

th 20

released 2-2010

Onesimo Haro (2009) Santa Clara Cty. v. Board

$Maurice (Mo) Williams (2009) L.A. Cty. v. Board

released 4-2012


$Hassan Cromwell (2009) L.A. Cty. v. Governor

released 10-2009

$Luis Ayala (2009) CA2 v. Governor released 11-2009

$Donald Furtado (2009) Santa Clara Cty. v. Board

$Luis Espinosa Morales (2009) Ventura Cty. v. Board

Granted From Informal Response Order

$Jesse Martinez (2009) E.D.Cal. v. Governor

$Jesse Martinez (2010) L.A. Cty v. Governor released 2-

2011

$Arnold Trevino (2010) E.D.Cal. v. Governor released 4-

2011


$Scott Breverman (2010) L.A. Cty. v. Board

$Timothy Casey (2010) L.A. Cty. v. Board released 2-

2011

$Mark Jeffery Jones (2010) L.A. Cty. v. Governor

$Mario Estrada (2010) E.D.Cal. v. Board

$Javier Pacheco (2010) C.D.Cal. v. Governor

$Donald Furtado (2010) Santa Clara v. Governor

$Ismael Rivero (2010) E.D.Cal. v. Board

$Javier Pacheco (2010) L.A. Cty. v. Governor released

11-2010

$Gary Eccher (2011) Orange Cty. v. Governor

$Thanh Nguyen (2011) Orange Cty. v. Board

$Mark Jeffery Jones (2011) CA2/5 v. Governor released

6-2011

$Donald Furtado (2011) CA6 v. Governor released 10-

2011 $Derrick Taylor (2011) L.A. Cty. v. Governor released

11-2011

$Scott Breverman L.A. Cty. v. Board (about matrix)

released 3-2012

$Gary Eccher (2012) CA4/3 v. Governor released 6-2012

Keith Chandler was released from Folsom Prison via

Federal Court Order in 2004 after serving 21 years (the

last 9 unconstitutionally) for second degree murder. Once

exposed to the injustices of the prison and parole systems,

Keith became a zealous advocate for change, working

nearly his entire term in the DVI and Old Folsom Law

Libraries, helping hundreds of inmates through the years.

Upon release, Keith serves as a political and legal

consultant for many clients, but has predominately

worked with attorney Steve Sanders and Sanders &

Associates, a West Sacramento Law Firm specializing in

parole and politically sensitive litigation. Sanders &

Associates, with Keith in a lead role, managed the

corporation that controlled the 2004 Prop. 66 Campaign

which sought to reform the Three Strikes Law. Keith,

working with Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety

(TIPS), was instrumental in litigation which blocked the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

from using 7 Billion Dollars of AB 900 prison

construction bonds for a two year period. Keith’s


JUSTICE FOR ALL

Page-6



political experience and grasp of the Three Strikes Law

found him working with FACTS and Stanford University

in the formative stages of Proposition 36, the 2012 effort

to reform Three Strikes. Keith’s consultation has resulted

in parole grants, reduced sentences, or outright release,

for dozens and dozens of inmates through the years.

Some of Keith’s meaningful cases are listed below:

Nick Swanson L.A. Cty. v. Gov. client released

Gil Fuentes S.D. Cty. v. Board initial parole hearing, 25

to life case, denied shooting, client released

$Robert Watson multiple habeas victories, S.D. Cty. and

CA4/1 v. Board and Governor client released

Manuel Cass multiple habeas victories, S.D. Cty. v. Board

and Governor client released

An Nguyen Orange Cty. v. Governor client released

K. Register E.D.Cal. inmate claims actual innocence

Paul Crowder four habeas victories, Orange Cty. and

CA4/3

PF Lazor Sonoma Cty. and CA6 v. Board, he had more

than 30-115’s, published 172 Cal.App.4th 1185

Mark Chandler Amador Cty. v. Board and Governor

client released

Jack McGarey multiple habeas victories, Sacramento Cty.

v. Board

Dale Crapo E.D.Cal. v. Board

Dave Bertagna E.D.Cal. v. Board, client released

Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety (TIPS) v.

Schwarzenegger, was a lawsuit alleging AB 900’s 7-

billion dollars of prison construction bonds were an

unconstitutional manipulation of the lease-revenue bond

process. Initial victory in Sacramento County later

overturned, and ultimately the case was lost. See $TIPS v

Schwarzenegger (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 749.

Chandler v. Wilson, 9th

Circuit Court of Appeal. Keith

sued various government officials for his 9-years of

unconstitutional confinement based upon the Al Leddy

documented political conspiracy to rescind all prior grants

of parole in the early 1990’s by then Gov. Wilson. Even

though represented by counsel, Keith was granted the rare

privilege of orally arguing the case before the 9th Circuit

himself. All defendants were ultimately held to be

immune. See link on ECC website for oral argument.

BOARD & PSYCH PREP. Wouldn’t it be nice to know what to say to the Board

before your parole hearing? Eccher & Chandler

Consulting help lifers prepare for their parole

hearings. This is listed in our ad above as Board

Preparation. Preparing for your parole hearing is one

of the most critical stages in the fight for your

freedom. We have read hundreds of parole hearing

transcripts and see the errors that lifers make in their

parole hearings. In addition, we have gained

knowledge about what is actually needed for parole

plans, i.e., letters of support, relapse prevention

plans, and substance abuse meetings, etc. We also

have contacts for transitional housing in some cases.

More importantly, we help provide you with 10-15

answers that you need for those difficult questions on

an individual basis. We also review your last parole

hearing transcript, page by page, and show you in

writing where you made mistakes and how to

improve your answers next time. THIS IS

CRITICAL. Going into your parole hearing 99%

prepared is critical to your success during the hearing

in two major respects. First, you stand a better

chance in receiving a parole date. Second, if you are

denied, you have prepared a great record that a judge

is going to read and possibly grant your writ-petition

in court. These answers apply to psych also.

CURRENT TITLE 15 DIVISION II BOARD OF

PAROLE HEARINGS $10.00 OR 40-POSTAGE

STAMPS, (.46¢ OR FOREVER).

ECC PROVIDES TWO (2) COPIES OF STATE OR

FEDERAL CASE LAW, (40-PAGES OR LESS),

FOR $5.00 OR 20-POSTAGE STAMPS, (.46¢ OR

FOREVER). IN ADDITION, ANY CURRENT

JUDICIAL COUNCIL FORMS NEEDED CAN BE

PURCHASED AT THE SAME PRICE. ANY

OTHER INFORMATION THAT YOU MIGHT

NEED CAN BE PURCHASED FROM ECC AT A

RATE OF (40-PAGES OR LESS), FOR $5.00 OR

20-POSTAGE STAMPS, (.46¢ OR FOREVER).

ECC MOTTO: “Most things in life are chimpanzee stuff, but every

once in a while you need a gorilla. That’s what we’re for.”


JUSTICE FOR ALL

Page-7



REENTRY MYTH BUSTER? This Myth Buster is one in a series of fact sheets intended to clarify

existing federal policies that affect formerly incarcerated individuals and their families.

MYTH: Eligibility for Social Security benefits cannot be reinstated when an inmate is released.

FACT: Social Security benefits are not payable if an individual is convicted of a criminal offense and

confined. However, monthly benefits usually can be reinstated after a period of incarceration by contacting

Social Security and providing proof of release. By law, Social Security benefits are not payable to an individual

who is convicted of a criminal offense and confined for more than 30 consecutive days. If an individual was

getting Social Security benefits prior to confinement, benefits are suspended until he or she is released.

Generally, there is no time limit on the period of suspension. Upon release, benefits can be reinstated without

filing a new claim. The individual must request reinstatement and provide proof of release to a Social Security

office. Upon provision of the necessary proof, the Social Security office will reinstate benefits quickly. Social

Security cannot reinstate benefits after release if the individual was not receiving benefits before confinement.

Instead, the individual must file a claim and be approved before benefits can be paid. For these individuals,

Social Security offers a prerelease application procedure, which enables a claim to be filed several months

before the scheduled release date. This process allows benefits to start shortly after the individual is released.

Social Security also administers the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program for aged or disabled

individuals who have limited income and resources. SSI benefits are suspended if the individual is incarcerated

for a full calendar month or more. If the incarceration is 12 months or less, Social Security can reinstate SSI

benefits quickly upon release. For incarceration periods greater than 12 months, SSI eligibility is terminated and

a new claim must be filed to reestablish eligibility. The prerelease application procedure expedites the provision

of SSI benefits after the individual is released. For More Info: Social Security’s Website http://ww.ssa.gov/.

MARC ERIC NORTON ATTORNEY AT LAW

BOLD - COMPETENT - PASSIONATE

LEGAL REPRESENTATION ● Representing Term-to-Life Clients at Parole Suitability Hearings Since 2006

● Practice Exclusively Limited to Parole Hearing and Related Matters; Including Petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus on Board Denials and/or Governor Reversals of Parole Grants/Petition to Recall Sentence 3-Strikes

~~~~ --“The Board’s psychologist rated me as Moderate/High Risk for violent recidivism, but Marc tore that report apart piece by piece and got me a parole date on November 8, 2012. Marc is the best lawyer I’ve ever seen.” Glenn Bailey, B-47535

--“Marc fought for me like I paid him a half million dollars!” Edwin “Chief” Whitespeare, CMF (R.I.P.)

--“Marc made the D.A. look like an idiot by pointing out all his lies and got me a parole date!” ‘Cooter’ Munoz, Mule Creek

~~~~

PO Box 162 Zamora CA 95698 phone: 530.669.7999 -- collect calls gladly accepted (please be patient)

email: [email protected]

I have experienced much success in “lifer” hearings--arguing for 76 findings of suitability;

that is 76 grants of parole for “lifers” most convicted of first or second degree murder since August 2006.



JUSTICE FOR ALL

Page-8



SINCE THE ADVENT OF $In re Shaputis II (2011)

53 Cal.4th

192, THERE ARE AT LEAST 40-MUST

KNOW CASES LISTED BELOW. STAY IN THE

GAME BY KNOWING ALL THE CASES.

$In re Gary Eccher 5-10-12 (ECC)

$In re David Peaslee 6-22-12

$In re Alex Tapia 6-25-12

$In re James Rovida 6-29-12

$In re Johnny Lira 6-29-12

$In re Michael Adamar 7-2-12

$In re Frederick Davidson 7-20-12

$In re John Batie 7-20-12

$In re Mark Ouellette 7-23-12

$In re James Mackey 7-31-12

$In re Brian Montgomery 8-2-12

$In re Manolo Tolentino 8-6-12

$In re Saterial Thomas 8-13-12

$In re Harjot Takhar 8-28-12

$In re Arcadio Acuna 8-30-12

$In re Adam Sanchez 8-31-12

$In re George White 9-6-12

$In re Denise Shigemura 9-27-12

$In re Roger Sundberg 10-12-12

$In re James Grisso 10-23-12

$In re Donnell Jameison 10-25-12

$In re Steven C. Martinez 10-26-12

$In re Erika Schomberg 10-31-12

$In re Gilbert Coronel 11-6-12

$In re Hall 11-28-12

$In re Denham 12-6-12

$In re Ferguson 12-19-12

$Warden v. Sup.Ct. & Carpenter 12-20-12

$In re Gamez 12-21-12

$In re Stevenson 12-21-12

$In re Martin 3-1-13

$In re Vicks 3-4-13

$In re Gray 3-28-13

$In re Stoneroad 4-18-13

$In re Lizarraga 4-23-13

$In re Fowler 6-18-13 (ECC)

$In re Lockett 6-24-13

$In re Kang 7-16-13

$In re Kanuse 8-19-13

$In re Robert Morales 9-16-13

$IN RE HUI KYUNG KANG, LEXIS 4987, CA6,

(7-16-13), NON-PUBLISHED. After killing a man

in 1993 by stabbing him approximately 40 times, Hui

Kyung Kang pleaded guilty to second degree murder

and was sentenced to 16 years to life. In 2011 the

Board found Kang unsuitable for parole and Kang

filed a writ. The superior court granted the petition

and court of appeal reversed. In 1993, Kang, then 21,

decided to meet a man at his hotel for a sexual

encounter hoping to get money, realized it was a

different man, but stayed and hid a knife under the

mattress, deciding to kill the man. Later calls were

made to hotel staff not to enter the room, and when

the body was finally found a bloody fingerprint was

identified as Kang's. She had used the victim’s credit

card after the murder. Kang gave differing versions

of the offense to authorities. The Board denied parole

for a three-year period, first citing the commitment

offense. Second, the Board found that Kang's

institutional misconduct showed that she had

continued her "reckless lifestyle" in prison. Third,

they found Kang had credibility issues, noting she

had faked mental illness when she was first

incarcerated. The Board was also concerned that the

record contained information Kang failed to mention

during the hearing. Finally, the Board found Kang

needed to further develop her insight. The Court

found some evidence the commitment offense show

that it was committed in "an especially heinous,

atrocious or cruel manner," but recognized the

immutable nature and need for a “rational nexus.”

The Court found, “First, serious misconduct in prison

is a factor that the Board may properly consider in

determining parole suitability,” and sided with Board

on this factor. Next, “the Board expressed its concern

that she lacked credibility. In particular, the Board

pointed to its discussion with Kang about the 2002

CDC 115 for conspiracy to introduce narcotics, and

its inquiry as to ‘why . . . this point in time, why was

this your wake up?’ The Board had reviewed the

brief in support of parole submitted by Kang's

attorney, which included two admissions by Kang:

(1) that she even after receiving the 2002 CDC 115

for conspiracy to introduce (Continued Next Page)


JUSTICE FOR ALL

Page-9



(Kang Continued) narcotics, she had done it again and not been caught; and (2) she had initially attended

church in order to bring drugs into the prison. The Board was concerned that Kang ‘didn't talk to us at all about

this additional attempt to bring narcotics into the institution when [she] didn't get caught, and how [she] really

only went to the church to get to where [she] needed to get the drugs inside. . . . [W]e were talking about it, and

[she] didn't cover that gap. That's just one example." The Court also found, “it was not arbitrary for the Board to

find that Kang's statements about her rehabilitation lacked credibility. The Board could reasonably doubt Kang's

claim, made during the hearing, that after receiving the CDC 115 in 2002 for conspiracy to introduce narcotics

she immediately experienced a spiritual awakening and began her recovery. As the Board pointed out, Kang's

brief in support of parole included the contrary admissions that she had subsequently attempted to introduce

narcotics and her initial purpose in attending church was to bring drugs into the prison.” The Board also found

that Kang could not explain why she murdered Yoon and therefore she needed to further develop her insight

into the commitment offense. The Board advised Kang that "[y]ou've got to be able to articulate reasons. This is

why I did it, and these are the things I've done to ensure that this kind of action will never happen again." The

Court pointed to Dr. Williams report that "Ms. Kang, to this day, cannot understand how she committed that

crime. To her credit, she offers no excuses or facile explanations that might ease her conscience." However, Dr.

Williams also reported that Kang "could decrease her risk of violent reoffense by: . . . continuing to examine

and come to terms with the causative factors of the life crime. . . ." Thus, there was evidence that even after

many years of rehabilitative programming, Kang still lacked "understanding of the crime and the reasons it

occurred." (Citing Shaputis II.) Kang's lack of insight was therefore "rationally indicative of [her] current

dangerousness." (Id. at p. 219.)

$IN RE GEORGE KANUSE, LEXIS 5792, CA1/3, (8-19-13), NON-PUBLISHED. In 1982 Kanuse attended

a holiday party given by his employer, drank heavily, smoked marijuana, and used cocaine. Kanuse invited his

girlfriend Ramsdell, but she opted to attend with her cousin and another young man. After she arrived, Kanuse

attempted to speak with her but she ignored him. Petitioner briefly left the party on two occasions: once to

smoke marijuana and once to escort a woman to her car when she left the party. Because the party was held in a

"shady" area in which Kanuse had been robbed, he retrieved his buck knife from his glove compartment and put

it in his pocket prior to escorting the woman to her car. Later, during the party, Kanuse saw Ramsdell speaking

with two men, tried to speak with her, put his hand on her shoulder and pulled her towards him. Ramsdell slid

out of the folding chair and the chair collapsed. Later Ramsdell and Kanuse then retreated to a corner, and

Kanuse ultimately poured a drink over her head. As Kanuse was about to leave the party, Ramsdell approached

him to talk but Kanuse walked away because he felt emotional about what he had done and ashamed of his

behavior. After he left the party Kanuse wanted to talk to Ramsdell that night in order to come to some kind of a

"conclusion" about their relationship. Despite the late hour, he went to Ramsdell's residence. There he

encountered her roommate, the victim, who was surprised by Kanuse’s presence. After arguing with Pierre

about whether he could stay, he turned to leave. As he did so, he heard a noise, and believing that Pierre was

opening a drawer to retrieve a weapon, Kanuse stabbed Pierre approximately 43 times with his buck knife.

Kanuse does not clearly remember the crime scene. The next day he threw the buck knife over the Bay Bridge.

Several days after Pierre's murder, Kanuse was arrested by law enforcement officers and he confessed to the

crime. Kanuse appeared before the Board for his seventh parole hearing in 2011 and was denied parole for three

years. The Board found, (1) "insufficient insight into the causative factors" [of the crime]; (2) the "heinous,

atrocious and cruel" nature of the crime; (3) Kanuse's problematic social history — especially as evidenced by

his romantic relationships and substance abuse; (4) his past and present attitude towards the crime, as shown by

his blaming the victim; (5) his inconsistent statements, specifically denying past violent acts (Con’t Next Page)


JUSTICE FOR ALL

Page-10



(Kanuse Continued) (despite the fact that earlier the evening he had poured a drink over Ramsdell's head); and

(6) his insufficient participation in beneficial self-help programming. The superior court denied the petition and

the court of appeals sided with Kanuse as follows. The Board determined that Kanuse "clearly place[s] blame

on the victim" in stating that "the victim telling [him] to leave and allegedly reaching toward a drawer" caused

him to become enraged and to stab the victim. The court found no evidence, let alone some evidence as

required, to support the Board's finding because “Kanuse's statements at the 2011 parole hearing were

consistent with numerous past comments which fully reflect acceptance of responsibility for the commission of

his crime.” “Kanuse characterized the victim's actions, which preceded the stabbings, as trivial and insignificant

which, solely because of his state of mind, resulted in his murdering her. His 2011 psychological evaluation,…

noted that he had ‘developed good insight and self-awareness into his personal characteristics (such as his

tendency to focus on himself and his low self-confidence) as well as the causative factors which led up to his

life crime.’ He candidly discussed his past tendency to lie and his current efforts to be considerate, upbeat,

positive, and genuine.” Next, the Court stated, “Nor do we find Kanuse's description of the victim's actions

immediately preceding the murder implausible nor inconsistent with his previous statements expressing

personal responsibility for his actions that night. (See $In re Hunter (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1529, 1539 [where

the petitioner's version of events is not contradicted by the evidence or implausible, Board cannot find the

petitioner's story to be untrue].) The Board also determined that Kanuse lacked insight based upon his denial

that he had been violent towards Ramsdell in the past. In making this finding the Board cited Kanuse's denial of

past violence towards Ramsdell as inconsistent with his admission that he poured a drink over her head at the

party prior to Pierre's murder. The Court found “To the contrary, the record establishes that prior to the Board's

colloquy with Kanuse regarding prior instances of violence between Kanuse and Ramsdell, Kanuse informed

the panel that he poured a drink over Ramsdell's head at the party. On this record we are simply unable to

discern the basis upon which the Board concluded that Kanuse provided inconsistent testimony regarding his

involvement in, or acknowledgement of, prior acts of violence towards Ramsdell.” The Board also concluded

that Kanuse had "insufficient insight" based on his history of "problematic relationships, principally in the area

of romantic relationships." The Court found “Kanuse clearly disavows his 1991 denial of the role that his

relationships with women played and reaffirms his 2008 statements that his relationships with women ‘did play

a role because of [his] attitudes that [he] brought with it.’ Although the Board is free to reject the psychological

examiner's evaluation on this — and any other — point, to do so, it must have ‘some evidence’ to support its

contrary view. (See Hunter, supra, at pp. 1540-1541.) This record contains no such evidence.” Next, “the Panel

is also concerned that you haven't sufficiently participated in beneficial self-help programming, and it does call

into question your true commitment. Namely, from 1997 until July of 2010, there was some absence from this

programming.” The Court found “the evidence fails to support the Board's conclusion that petitioner was

absent from substance abuse programming from 1997 to July 2010 in support of its denial of parole. The Board

cannot discount Kanuse's participation in Rational Recovery simply because it is not a 12-step program.

Contrary to the Board's conclusion, the record reflects that Kanuse has consistently participated in substance

abuse programming. Although at times Kanuse's characterizations of his substance abuse have ranged from

‘serious problem drinker’ to ‘alcoholic,’ we discern no evidence from these descriptions to support the Board's

finding that Kanuse's commitment to, or appreciation of the important tenets of substance abuse programming

renders him a current threat to public safety if released on parole” The Court ordered a new hearing. Congrats.

If you would like to subscribe to the ECC Newsletter, rates are $20.00 or 80-postage

stamps, (.46¢ or forever). One year subscriptions are offered and include six issues

per year. Rates apply to everyone.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6789881804535415902&hl=en&lr=lang_en&as_sdt=2,5&as_vis=1



JUSTICE FOR ALL

Page-11



Benjamin Ramos Law Office of Benjamin Ramos 705 E. Bidwell, Suite 2-359 Folsom, CA 95630 (916) 358-9842

THE RIGHT EXPERIENCE MATTERS

www.lawofficeofbenjaminramos.com

Any attorney can quote the risk assessments in your psychological evaluations and read positive chronos to the Board. All attorneys do this. Many cases, however, require much more from your attorney. To maximize your chances for parole, your attorney should, if possible, present the facts that destroy or call into question the prosecution’s theory of the case and, if

possible, make his argument look hasty and poorly thought out. Here are some examples from my cases: Jeff Rousy (brother of UFC Champ Ronda Rousey) The deputy DA argued and ranted that the crime was “planned and

premeditated.” Unfortunately, for the DA, he failed to read the police reports, which established, among supportive other facts, that Jeff and his crime partner arrived unarmed, parked at an angle in the driveway, used weapons found in the house to commit the crime and didn’t take anything of value from the home. Later, Jeff returned to the crime scene and talked to numerous neighbors. Who ‘plans’ to commit a murder by arriving and parking in a conspicuous manner, bringing no weapons,

finding and loading weapons inside the house, and then returning to the murder scene an hour later and talking to several neighbors? Obviously, the crime was not ‘planned’ to occur that way, and the deputy DA’s credibility was severely damaged. Parole granted.

James Ludlow James was involved in a kidnap-murder with 3 other individuals. As usual, the deputy DA harped about heinousness of the crime and the planning. Although it was true that the crime involved extensive planning was certainly

heinous, the deputy DA overlooked that James’ crime partners did all the planning and preparation. James was recruited at the last moment to provide “muscle.” He was an outsider who was driven from Oklahoma to California by a crime partner ostensibly to help him move. Once in California, the crime opportunity was presented to him; murder was not part of the plan

presented to James, and as an outsider who had never been to California, he could not have possibly planned and orchestrated the elaborate kidnap-murder scheme. DA’s theory of the case against James was weak and factually unsupported. Parole granted.

Clayton Mills The AG repeatedly argued that Mills was the trigger man—despite the jury’s finding that he was NOT

personally armed during the crime. Another frivolous, unsupported argument. Writ granted. The Law Office of Benjamin Ramos provides

Free review of latest parole hearing transcript or governor reversal (please send disposable copy, NOT original, copies will not be returned) for assessment of potential merit of habeas corpus petition to challenge parole denial or governor reversal

Parole Hearing Representation since 2000, appointed to more than 700 parole cases; numerous private parole hearing clients;

successful law practice since 1991.

Detailed Parole Hearing Strategies: After Shaputis II, “plausibility” of the prisoner’s account of the crime and other matters are

crucial; analyze all sources of evidence for presenting plausible and credible testimony and be prepared to handle priors, 115s,

express “insight,” remorse and answer questions effectively, among other concerns.

Experience from 28 Successful Habeas Petitions Against the Board/Governor/CDCR

Representative Former Clients Now Released on Parole: Gary Eccher, Billy Mayfield, Clayton Mills, Frank Bautista, Larry

Botsford, James Ludlow, Charles Williams, Darin Palermo, Michael Lindley, Michael Barnes, Michael deVries, Gustavo Aguilar,

Jeffrey Rousey (brother of UFC Champ Ronda Rousey) . . . and many others.

Writs Challenging Parole Denial/Governor Reversal

Writs Challenging Bogus Gang Validation Decisions

Clean State Bar Record spanning 22 years (State Bar #156643).

“Ben made the deputy district attorney (DDA) look like a fool. After the DDA finished his closing by telling many lies and making false statements, Ben opened his closing with; ‘I object to everything the DDA said; if this were a court of law I would ask that his closing be stricken from the record as speculation and hearsay. He then took apart and exposed all the DDA’s lies and misrepresentations.’” Gary (Red) Eccher, free today.

http://www.lawofficeofbenjaminramos.com/


JUSTICE FOR ALL

Page-12



$IN RE ANTHONY BEAN, (8-8-2013) WL 4047100, CA3, NON-PUBLISHED. Congrats to Ben Ramos for cracking this case. This case challenges CDCR validating Bean, as an active member of the Black Guerrilla Family (BGF) prison gang.

CDCR relied on four source items, two of the source items fail to meet the requirements of the reg’s. One source item, a report from the "debriefing" of a prison gang member, fails to refer to "specific gang related acts or conduct" by Bean, as required by section 3378, subdivision (c)(8)(M). Another source item, a book order form found in Bean's possession, is not supported by

prison staff's articulation of why, "based on either the explicit or coded content," the written material is reliable evidence of association or membership with the gang, as required by section 3378, subdivision (c)(8)(C). Accordingly, the appeals court

vacated this validation based on the following. "Prison regulations promulgated by [CDCR] set forth the procedures and substantive requirements for validating an inmate as a member or associate of a prison gang. Because gangs `present a serious threat to the safety and security of California prisons' (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3023, subd. (b)), validation of an inmate as a

gang member or associate can result in the inmate's placement in a security housing unit (SHU)." ($In re Cabrera (2012) 55 Cal.4th 683, 685.) “The validation of either a gang member or associate requires the recognition of three reliable source items indicative of active association with the gang, and at least one of those sources must constitute a direct link to a current or

former validated gang member or associate. (See [$In re] Efstathiou [(2011)] 200 Cal.App.4th [725,] 730; see also §§ 3378, subd. (c)(2), (3), (4), (8), 3321.)" ($In re Fernandez (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1199, 1205.) "The `some evidence' standard is the

constitutional test that applies to court review of certain prison administrative decisions, including the gang validation decisions at issue here as well as other decisions such as parole or prison discipline affecting an inmate's credits.” ($In re Furnace (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 649, 659.) A “Debriefing Report, October 31, 2007 Memo” was one of the four source items used in the

validation decision by a validated BGF member. In validating a gang member, CDCR may rely on evidence that "comes from `debriefing' inmates who were involved with the prison gang. The regulation provides: `Only information referencing specific gang related acts or conduct shall be considered as a source item. Multiple sources of information relative to a single gang

related offense or activity shall be considered a single source of validation.'” (§ 3378, subd. (c)(8)(M).) According to the confidential information disclosure form, as relevant: “Bean” was identified by a validated BGF member undergoing the debrief process as a BGF member. Bean was identified as physically assaulting a BGF member while housed at San Quentin. Bean is

directly linked to the BGF member being debriefed. The court reviewed the October 31, 2007, confidential memorandum, which adds only, as relevant, the name of the debriefed BGF member, the name of the BGF member assaulted by Bean at San

Quentin, Bean's "aka," and the approximate date of the incident. The confidential memorandum fails to refer to "specific gang related acts or conduct" committed by Bean. The fact that Bean assaulted a BGF member has no tendency in itself to show that he was a BGF member or that the assault was a gang related act. Thus, this source item consists of nothing more than a

debriefed BGF member's identification of Bean as a BGF member. "Some evidence" does not support reliance on the October 31, 2007, confidential memorandum as a source item for Bean's validation as a prison gang member. CDCR also relied on a book order form found in Bean's possession. CDCR justifies its reliance on this book order form on the ground that it

constitutes a "written material" source item. A "written material" source item is defined in the gang validation regulation as: "Any material or documents evidencing gang activity such as the membership or enemy lists, constitutions, organizational

structures, codes, training material, etc., of specific gangs. Staff shall articulate why, based on either the explicit or coded content, the written material is reliable evidence of association or membership with the gang." (§ 3378, subd. (c)(8)(C), italics added.) Central to the plain language of this definition is the requirement that there be something in the content of the written

material that evidences gang membership or association. According to the confidential information disclosure form, as relevant: "[O]n August 4, 2010, a search of the personal paperwork belonging to Bean was conducted. During the course of this search a book order form was discovered. The order form was for a book titled `Finding Freedom: Writings From Death Row.' The

author of this book is identified as MASTERS, Jarvis aka `Lefthand' a validated BGF member. At the top of the order form the following handwritten entry was discovered. `Hey! Lefthand asked me to forward this. ♥ Donna.' This document reveals

Bean’s continued communication via third party contact with a validated BGF member." The court reviewed the confidential memorandum which attached a copy of the book order form. CDCR also supported its return with the declaration of Special Agent Beeson of CDCR's Office of Correctional Safety, a prison gang expert. As relevant to the book order form, Agent

Beeson asserts, “Bean’s possession of the book order form demonstrates Bean’s continued contact and communication, via a third party, with a validated BGF member." However, the plain language of subdivision (c)(8)(C) of section 3378 requires that something in the content of the written material, either explicit or coded, must evidence gang association or membership.

CDCR does not contend that the book being ordered evidences gang involvement, or that the description of the book evidences gang involvement, thus no evidence. The court ordered expungement of the validation, remove all documents related to the validation from petitioner's prison file, and cease housing petitioner based on the 2010 gang validation.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2245601827428460023&q=In+re+Anthony+Bean&hl=en&as_sdt=4,5

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2245601827428460023&q=In+re+Anthony+Bean&hl=en&as_sdt=4,5


JUSTICE FOR ALL

Page-13



The Law Office Of

JARED EISENSTAT

Representing

LIFERS Since 1997

Partial List of my Clients

who have received PAROLE

GRANTS in the LAST YEAR

Contact Me for:

Lifer Hearings Randall Gray C54753

Writs Roderick Cooper C72227

Luis Morales E70707

Appeals Frank Mata E27520

Canuto Garcia D05421

Three Strike Petitions Edward Hopkins D37284

Jose Martinez H98897

other Lifer Issues Leonardo Rosas J28005

Dennis Canjura J73444 Keasuc Hill E37208 Hae Lee H22780 Kenneth Burnham C52135

References Available Upon Request William Crawford H05871

The Law Office of Jared Eisenstat

5222 East Los Altos Plaza

Long Beach, CA 90815

PHONE: (562) 415-8369

FAX: (562) 498-8127

EMAIL: [email protected]

TESTIMONIAL FROM A SATISFIED CLIENT

“I would urge anyone needing legal representation to hire Mr. Eisenstat. His vigorous defense

salvaged a parole hearing that wasn’t going well. Mr. Eisenstat calmly refuted the deputy

district attorney’s baseless allegations and portrayed me in a favorable light. Mr. Eisenstat was

the difference between another three year denial and my freedom. A very satisfied client,

William G. Crawford.”


JUSTICE FOR ALL

Page-14



$IN RE ROBERT MORALES, LEXIS 6576, CA3, (9-16-13), NON-PUBLISHED. Morales has been in

prison for 22 years for fatally stabbing one man and critically wounding another following a failed car burglary.

The Board denied parole explaining its reasoning as follows: "The first consideration which does weigh against

suitability today is the commitment offense, and the Panel feels there is an adequate nexus between the

commitment offense and your current risk of danger based on the fact that this is a crime that has never been

considered by a previous Panel." The Board then purported to describe additional unsuitability factors revealed

by the record, but failed to relate how those factors were in any way probative of current dangerousness. The

Board then stated that after "weighing all of the evidence presented today, you're unsuitable [for] parole because

you pose a current and unreasonable risk of danger if released and require at least an additional five years of

incarceration." Morales petitioned the trial court which granted the writ and the court of appeal affirmed as

follows. The Murder: In 1988, Morales and his younger brother were drinking and socializing with a friend at

her Sacramento apartment. He wanted to leave and took his brother with him. He thought about taking the light

rail home but then decided they should steal a car, although he had enough money to pay the fare. His brother

said, "`let's not do it,' but he went along." Morales identified the car to steal at the apartment complex, and at his

request, his brother broke the window. Confronted by a resident of the complex who drew a gun, he and his

brother fled on foot. They were pursued by several apartment residents, including victims Terry McFarland and

John Fitzgerald. Subsequently, Morales stabbed him and beat him with a bat. The AG framed the issues in

court as, 1) the offense; 2) mental state and attitude, specifically arguing that he failed to accept full

responsibility for the murder and he lacked insight into his criminality because he never apologized for his

actions and had only moderate insight into his antisocial thinking and criminality; and 3) he received a custodial

counseling chrono in 2010 for possessing stolen food. Regarding the offense, the Court put it this way: "We

need not discuss whether we agree with the Board's characterization of the crime because immutable facts such

as the commitment offense may serve as the basis for a parole denial "only if those facts support the ultimate

conclusion that an inmate continues to pose an unreasonable risk to public safety." ($In re Lawrence (2008) 44

Cal.4th 1181, 1221 .) There was none. The second consideration was his social history, noting "there were

problematic relationships between [him] and principally [his] father"; he began using drugs and alcohol at a

young age, around eight or nine years old; and he was a high school dropout. The Court found, “This

consideration need not detain us long, as even the People make no attempt to justify why his unstable social

history has a rational nexus to current dangerousness. His father is dead, and he maintains positive relationships

with his siblings. He did not use drugs or alcohol in prison. He attended addiction recovery counseling,

eventually becoming a counselor in the program. Finally, in prison he has completed his GED, received his high

school diploma, was five classes away from receiving his associate of arts degree, and had worked or attended

vocational training during most of his incarceration." The Board next addressed what it referred to as "past and

present mental state" and "past and present attitude toward the crime." First commenting on what it

characterized as his failure to accept "full responsibility" for the life crime, the Board opined that he was "still

blaming others" because he "placed this almost in a mode of self-defense." He also "noted that substance

abuse impaired [his] judgment and contributed to [his] highly impulsive decision to attempt to steal a car . . .

and that the offense would have never occurred if [he] were clean and sober . . . . That does to a degree fly in

the face because there was an opportunity of intervention by [his] brother but yet his actions still prevailed."

“The psychologist had noted he had less insight into the loss of control of his aggressive impulses and anger

that resulted in the stabbing of the two victims, and that he had limited insight into his failure to develop

empathy for others as a youth.” The Court found “the Board was wrong factually: Morales did not continue to

believe that self-defense justified the stabbing. Therefore, the Board's implicit finding of current dangerousness

based on defendant continuing to assert self-defense was a non-starter.” (Continued Next Page)




JUSTICE FOR ALL

Page-15



(Morales Continued) The doctor refuted this by documenting that he was "scared" and "did what [he] felt [he]

had to do to protect [his] brother and [him]self." In a section entitled "remorse and insight into the life crime,"

the psychologist reported that "during the current interview," he "acknowledged responsibility for the offense."

In a section entitled "role that alcohol/drugs played in the commitment offense and inmate's ability to refrain

from future use in the free community," he explained that his decision to pull out his knife at the time of the

offense was impulsive and was associated with his significant intoxication. He observed that his use of cannabis

additionally reduced his ability to think clearly and prevented him from considering the consequences of his

decisions. Clearly when Morales discussed the motivation for his crime and characterized it as doing what he

felt he had to do for self-protection and protection of his brother, he was discussing how he felt at the time of

the crime. He felt the killing was necessary at the time he killed. His understanding of his motivation, albeit

misplaced motivation, at the time of the crime shows insight, not "blaming others." The Board noted his lack of

remorse, based first on his failure to say, "I'm sorry." However, the doctor stated the following, "The C-file

records indicate that [defendant] has acknowledged responsibility for the offense and has expressed remorse for

the victims and their families since his arrest. He also acknowledged responsibility for the offense during the

current interview. He expressed remorse for killing the victim and for the serious injuries to the second victim.

He noted that he hurt many people and that the victim's family suffered tremendously." In a section entitled "the

prisoner's violence potential in the free community," the psychologist's report stated the following: "Although

he has expressed remorse for the murder of the victim, the interview and the review of the records indicated an

absence of significant feelings of guilt." At the hearing he was asked whether the last statement in the

psychologist's report was accurate. He responded as follows: "No. I certainly feel guilty for what I've done. I

don't know why he would have stated that in that manner. But I definitely do feel guilt. There's no words to

describe how I feel about it. It's difficult. I fully take responsibility for what I did. Again I had no right. I had

absolutely no right to kill Terry McFarland. You know, he didn't deserve to die and I brought that upon him,

and I can never give that back. I can never change what happened. And so it's something I got to live with for

the rest of my life, knowing that I took another human being's life and affected many other people in the

process. You know, I have to look forward and try to make amends with myself and with the people I've hurt

and make things better from now on. That's all I have to say." Morales' attorney then asked the record to reflect

that he "appeared to get somewhat emotional when answering that question." Thus, no evidence for lack of

remorse. Next, the Board "noted that the substance abuse impaired [his] judgment and contributed to [his]

highly impulsive decision to attempt to steal a car . . . and that the offense would have never occurred if you

were clean and sober . . . . That does to a degree fly in the face because there was an opportunity of intervention

by [his] brother but yet [defendant's] actions still prevailed." The Court found “the Board was wrong factually

because his decision to steal the car was based on more (Continued Next Page)

Katey Gilbert Attorney at Law

1288 Columbus Ave #296

San Francisco, CA 94133

Tel: (650) 464-0785

Fax: (415) 291-0684

Parole Hearing Representation

Writs of Habeas Corpus

versus Governor, Board, CDCR

and Criminal Convictions

1045(A) Pet. To Advance Hearing

3-STRIKES PETITION

TO RECALL SENTENCE

tel:%28650%29%20464-0785

tel:%28415%29%C2%A0291-0684


JUSTICE FOR ALL

Page-16



Chris Fowler Finally Free:

By Keith Chandler Long-time ECC and Steve Sanders client, and my

dear personal friend Chris Fowler, is finally home.

Ann McLintock of the Federal Defenders Office has

also worked very hard for Chris through the years.

Watching my friend adjust to things out here has

been a blast. He insisted on a cheeseburger, fries and

onion rings for a first meal, and we were quickly

picking up clothes and getting his stuff together.

Chris was ready for release, and had his birth

certificate and social security card ready. He was

driving within a week or so. Coming back from

getting his license he even made like Ricky Bobby (I

wanna’ go fast) when I let him drive my car. Chris

fully immersed himself in programming through

SCBC in Sacramento and within his sober living

home. Due to his school load we have not been able

to play around as much as we would like (the

realities of life take over very fast), but we have

managed to go bowling and golfing a few times. In

fact, Chris and I had a great time fulfilling a dream

we talked about for years on the yard, golfing with

his father. We also played at the amazing Apple

Mountain Golf Resort. Welcome Home Chris, you

richly deserved it, and it’s about time them damn

buzzards left you alone for a minute!

(Morales Continued) than just his intoxication.”

Morales told the doctor that he "described himself as

failing to internalize the correct values at that time, which

enabled him to make the decision to steal a car on the

evening of the offense. He added that he was engaging in

criminal thinking and addictive thinking when he made

that decision." "He noted that [alcohol and marijuana]

impaired his judgment and contributed to his highly

impulsive decision to attempt to steal a car. . . . [H]e and

his brother had never stolen a vehicle prior to that time,

and they had no knowledge regarding how to hot wire the

car after they broke into it . . . [T]he offense never would

have happened if he was clean and sober since clear

thinking would have led him to conclude that he did not

know how to steal a car." "He explained that his decisions

to steal a car . . . w[as] impulsive and w[as] associated

with his significant intoxication. He observed that his use

of cannabis additionally reduced his ability to think

clearly and prevented him from considering the

consequences of his decisions. He noted that his

intoxication on cannabis also contributed to his decision

to attempt to steal a car despite his lack of any knowledge

of how to start a vehicle without a key." Needless to say,

“On this record, there was no factual support for the

Board's assertion that Morales’ thought process about

stealing the car was somehow deficient because he placed

the blame only on his intoxication.” The Board erred in

relying on this factor. Next, the Board played word

games regarding “Less Insight And Limited Insight” by

relying on the psychologist's observations in this regard.

The Court found, “The problem with the Board's reliance

on lack of sufficient insight is that nowhere does the

report conclude that he lacks or has insufficient insight in

any area.” The Board's reliance on this factor was

arbitrary. The final consideration was “misconduct while

incarcerated” for “possession of stolen food.” The Court

properly framed the question as "whether there is a

rational nexus between the evidence and the ultimate

determination of current dangerousness." ($In re Shaputis

II (2011) 53 Cal.4th 192, 221.) The Court found no

evidence because Morales “has been discipline free for

his entire 22 years of incarceration. We fail to see a

rational nexus between defendant's minor prison

misconduct, the most recent being possessing two pounds

of stolen pinto beans in 2010, either by itself or coupled

with other evidence in defendant's record, and his current

dangerousness. The misconduct was not serious, violent,

or dangerous, or part of an extensive history of

institutional misconduct.” He gets a new hearing.

Chris Fowler and Keith




JUSTICE FOR ALL

Page-17



Diane Letarte, for real. Diane, Robert Rosenkrantz, Serena Salinas and Yolanda at the party.

ATTORNEY for LIFERS

Parole Hearings and Appeals

Prop 36: Petition for Re-sentencing

Diane T. Letarte, MBA, LLM

*MS Forensic Psychology

1080 Park Blvd., Ste 1008

San Diego, CA 92101

We “Fight” for YOU

Experienced, Competent and Reasonable

Completed over 1500 Hearings

Parole Hearings: Lose “INSIGHT” lately?

We work with Private Psychologists for

Rebuttal Letters

Habeas Corpus (BPH denials & Gov. Reversals)

Petition to Advance (PTA) BPH 1045A

Case Eval. for Post-Conviction Relief issues

3-Strikes Relief - Sentenced illegally?

“It’s not the size of the DOG in the fight,

It’s the size of the FIGHT in the dog.”

Former President of

San Diego NC Chapter of Lawyers Club

Judge Pro Tem, San Diego Superior Court

619-233-3688

E-MAIL: [email protected]

WEBSITE: www.renegade-attorney.com

ATTORNEY OF THE MONTH FOR MAY 2013 IN THE “ATTORNEY JOURNAL”

http://www.renegade-attorney.com/


JUSTICE FOR ALL

Page-18



Eccher & Chandler Consulting

532 N. Magnolia Ave. #333

Anaheim, CA 92801

SERVICES: If you would like to subscribe to the ECC Newsletter, rates are $20.00 or 80-postage stamps,

(.46¢ or forever). One year subscriptions are offered and include six issues per year. Rates apply to everyone.

ECC provides two (2) copies of state or federal case law, (40-pages or less), for $5.00 or 20-postage stamps,

(.46¢ or forever). In addition, any documents mentioned in ECC with a $-symbol are also available.

Any current judicial council forms needed by you can be purchased, (40-pages or less), for $5.00 or 20-postage

stamps, (.46¢ or forever).

Current Title 15 Division II Board of Parole Hearings $10.00 or 40-postage stamps, (.46¢ or forever).

LIFE IN LIMBO, (by Stanford Criminal Justice Center) an examination of parole release for prisoners serving

life sentences with the possibility of parole in California is $5.00 or 20-postage stamps, (.46¢ or forever).

Any other information that you might need can be purchased from ECC at a rate of (40-pages or less), for $5.00

or 20-postage stamps, (.46¢ or forever).

ECC seeks your input or inquiries, regarding habeas corpus, Board, Governor, CDC, criminal matters,

sentencing errors, plea bargains, IAC, civil matters, family matters, Board preparations, BPH-1045(A) or

CDC-602s. Based on the amount of correspondence, replies are not guaranteed.

Documents

ECC NEWSLETTER #8 SEPTEMBER 2013 JUSTICE FOR ALL …eccherchandlerconsulting.com/uploads/ECC_8.pdf · ECC NEWSLETTER #8 SEPTEMBER 2013 JUSTICE FOR ALL Page-2 HELPING EVERYONE REGARDLESS