×
You have 1 more free article available this month. Subscribe today.
Continued Reliance on Commitment Offense to Deny California Lifers Parole Denies Federal Due Proces
Continued Reliance on Commitment Offense to Deny California Lifers Parole Denies Federal Due Process
by Marvin Mentor
The U.S.D.C. (E.D. Cal.) granted habeas relief to a California lifer whose parole had been repeatedly denied based upon the commitment offense, and ordered the California Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) to release him to parole. But because the decision issued five days before a contrary, controlling state-court interpretive decision on Californias lifer parole statutes issued, the decision is subject to serious appellate challenges.
Carl Irons was convicted of second degree murder when he became angered at a roommate, shot him twelve times with a rifle, then stabbed him twice with a buck knife and kept the body in the apartment for ten days. Thereafter, he wrapped the body in a blanket, covered it with chicken wire, tied weights to it and drove it to the ocean where he threw it in the water.
Irons was denied parole at his fifth BPH hearing in 2001 principally because of the gravity of the offense. The Marin County Superior Court denied his habeas petition, finding that there was some evidence in the record to support the Boards conclusion. Higher state courts agreed without further reasoned opinions.
The U.S.D.C. found that reliance upon the unchanging factor of Irons commitment offense, however, violated due process of law, relying on dicta in Biggs v. Terhune, 334 F.3d 910, 914 (9th Cir. 2003). The court further relied upon Biggs to determine that Californias parole statute (Penal Code § 3041) vested a liberty interest in parole. The BPH has appealed on numerous grounds.
First, the intervening California State Supreme Court interpretation of PC 3041 (In re Dannenberg, 34 Ca1.4th 1061 (2005)); held that the Boards wide discretion permits it to continue to deny parole based upon the commitment offense alone, so long as it barely exceeded the minimum elements of the offense. The BPH has argued that Dannenberg is now binding on the federal courts as a state court interpretation of state law.
Meanwhile, another federal district court has held that the real effect of Dannenberg was to reverse the California Supreme Courts prior ruling in In re Rosenkrantz, 29 Cal.4th 616 (2001) which had held that lifers have a state-law-created liberty interest in parole. (See: Sass v. Board of Prison Terms, 376 F.Supp.2d 975 (U.S.D.C., E.D. Cal. 2005; 9th Cir. Case No. 0516455 (pending)).) But the Sass decision is being appealed because it chose to give deference to Dannenberg as being controlling rather than Biggs, a prior Ninth Circuit holding that there was a liberty interest in Californias lifer parole statute.
The Ninth Circuits interest was piqued by the Irons appeal on yet another point. The court asked the parties to brief on whether the Anti-Terrorist and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) unconstitutionally violates United States Constitution Article III federal court powers by limiting the reach of habeas corpus. Briefs are submitted. See: Irons v. Carey, 408 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2005). PLN will report the decision when it is issued.
In the meanwhile, the Ninth Circuit granted en banc review of Buckley v. Terhune, 397 F.3d. 1154 (9th Cir. 2005), a California lifer case involving the value (if any) to a plea bargain to take a lesser life sentence rather than going to trial, as to its eventual impact on the granting of parole. Since the Buckley en banc case postdates Dannenberg, Irons, and Sass, it will likely resolve the tension among them. If the Ninth Circuit finds that the AEDPA is unconstitutional, the U.S. Supreme Court will probably grant certiorari.
Dannenberg, meanwhile, is pursuing federal remedies following his ruling in Dannenberg (which became final October 3, 2005 when the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari; Dannenberg v. Brown, No. 04-10299). Adding to the mix is that on September 16, 2005, the BPH found Dannenberg suitable and granted parole. He would have been released in February 2006 but Governor Schwarzenegger overruled the BPHs decision. (Cal. Penal Code § 3041.2.) See: Irons v. Warden, 358 F.Supp.2d 936 (E.D. Cal. 2005).
by Marvin Mentor
The U.S.D.C. (E.D. Cal.) granted habeas relief to a California lifer whose parole had been repeatedly denied based upon the commitment offense, and ordered the California Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) to release him to parole. But because the decision issued five days before a contrary, controlling state-court interpretive decision on Californias lifer parole statutes issued, the decision is subject to serious appellate challenges.
Carl Irons was convicted of second degree murder when he became angered at a roommate, shot him twelve times with a rifle, then stabbed him twice with a buck knife and kept the body in the apartment for ten days. Thereafter, he wrapped the body in a blanket, covered it with chicken wire, tied weights to it and drove it to the ocean where he threw it in the water.
Irons was denied parole at his fifth BPH hearing in 2001 principally because of the gravity of the offense. The Marin County Superior Court denied his habeas petition, finding that there was some evidence in the record to support the Boards conclusion. Higher state courts agreed without further reasoned opinions.
The U.S.D.C. found that reliance upon the unchanging factor of Irons commitment offense, however, violated due process of law, relying on dicta in Biggs v. Terhune, 334 F.3d 910, 914 (9th Cir. 2003). The court further relied upon Biggs to determine that Californias parole statute (Penal Code § 3041) vested a liberty interest in parole. The BPH has appealed on numerous grounds.
First, the intervening California State Supreme Court interpretation of PC 3041 (In re Dannenberg, 34 Ca1.4th 1061 (2005)); held that the Boards wide discretion permits it to continue to deny parole based upon the commitment offense alone, so long as it barely exceeded the minimum elements of the offense. The BPH has argued that Dannenberg is now binding on the federal courts as a state court interpretation of state law.
Meanwhile, another federal district court has held that the real effect of Dannenberg was to reverse the California Supreme Courts prior ruling in In re Rosenkrantz, 29 Cal.4th 616 (2001) which had held that lifers have a state-law-created liberty interest in parole. (See: Sass v. Board of Prison Terms, 376 F.Supp.2d 975 (U.S.D.C., E.D. Cal. 2005; 9th Cir. Case No. 0516455 (pending)).) But the Sass decision is being appealed because it chose to give deference to Dannenberg as being controlling rather than Biggs, a prior Ninth Circuit holding that there was a liberty interest in Californias lifer parole statute.
The Ninth Circuits interest was piqued by the Irons appeal on yet another point. The court asked the parties to brief on whether the Anti-Terrorist and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) unconstitutionally violates United States Constitution Article III federal court powers by limiting the reach of habeas corpus. Briefs are submitted. See: Irons v. Carey, 408 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2005). PLN will report the decision when it is issued.
In the meanwhile, the Ninth Circuit granted en banc review of Buckley v. Terhune, 397 F.3d. 1154 (9th Cir. 2005), a California lifer case involving the value (if any) to a plea bargain to take a lesser life sentence rather than going to trial, as to its eventual impact on the granting of parole. Since the Buckley en banc case postdates Dannenberg, Irons, and Sass, it will likely resolve the tension among them. If the Ninth Circuit finds that the AEDPA is unconstitutional, the U.S. Supreme Court will probably grant certiorari.
Dannenberg, meanwhile, is pursuing federal remedies following his ruling in Dannenberg (which became final October 3, 2005 when the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari; Dannenberg v. Brown, No. 04-10299). Adding to the mix is that on September 16, 2005, the BPH found Dannenberg suitable and granted parole. He would have been released in February 2006 but Governor Schwarzenegger overruled the BPHs decision. (Cal. Penal Code § 3041.2.) See: Irons v. Warden, 358 F.Supp.2d 936 (E.D. Cal. 2005).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal cases
Irons v. Warden
| Year | 2005 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 358 F.Supp.2d 936 (E.D. Cal. 2005) |
| Level | District Court |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
CARL MERTON IRONS, II, Petitioner, vs. WARDEN OF CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON-SOLANO, et al., Respondents.
No. CIV S-04-0220 LKK GGH P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
358 F. Supp. 2d 936; 2005 U.S. Dist.
January 18, 2005, Decided
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Subsequent appeal at Irons v. Carey, 408 F.3d 1165, 2005 U.S. App. (9th Cir. Cal., May 18, 2005)
PRIOR HISTORY: Irons v. Warden of Cal. State Prison-Solano, 358 F. Supp. 2d 936, 2004 U.S. Dist. (E.D. Cal., 2004)
COUNSEL: [**1] For Carl Merton Irons, II, Petitioner: Ann Catherine McClintock, Federal Defenders Office, Sacramento, CA.
For Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor, Tom L Carey, Warden California State Prison Solano, Respondents: Pamela B. Hooley, Office Of The Attorney General, Sacramento, CA.
JUDGES: LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, SENIOR JUDGE.
OPINIONBY: LAWRENCE K. KARLTON
OPINION:
[*938] ORDER
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with counsel, has filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.
On September 1, 2004, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Both parties have filed objection to the findings and recommendations. Petitioner has filed a reply to respondent's objections.
[*939] In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a de novo [**2] review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed September 1, 2004, are adopted in full.
2. The petition is granted as to the claim that there was not sufficient evidence to support the 2001 decision finding petitioner unsuitable for parole; the petition is denied in all other respects.
3. Within thirty days of the date of this order, assuming the commission of no serious disciplinary infractions henceforth, especially infractions of a violent nature, BPT is ordered to calculate petitioner's release date, and petitioner is to be released on parole.
DATED: January 18, 2005.
LAWRENCE K. KARLTON
SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE
XX -- Decision by the Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED
THAT JUDGMENT IS HEREBY ENTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COURT'S ORDER OF 01/19/05
ENTERED: January 19, 2005 [**3]
No. CIV S-04-0220 LKK GGH P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
358 F. Supp. 2d 936; 2005 U.S. Dist.
January 18, 2005, Decided
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Subsequent appeal at Irons v. Carey, 408 F.3d 1165, 2005 U.S. App. (9th Cir. Cal., May 18, 2005)
PRIOR HISTORY: Irons v. Warden of Cal. State Prison-Solano, 358 F. Supp. 2d 936, 2004 U.S. Dist. (E.D. Cal., 2004)
COUNSEL: [**1] For Carl Merton Irons, II, Petitioner: Ann Catherine McClintock, Federal Defenders Office, Sacramento, CA.
For Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor, Tom L Carey, Warden California State Prison Solano, Respondents: Pamela B. Hooley, Office Of The Attorney General, Sacramento, CA.
JUDGES: LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, SENIOR JUDGE.
OPINIONBY: LAWRENCE K. KARLTON
OPINION:
[*938] ORDER
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with counsel, has filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.
On September 1, 2004, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Both parties have filed objection to the findings and recommendations. Petitioner has filed a reply to respondent's objections.
[*939] In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a de novo [**2] review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed September 1, 2004, are adopted in full.
2. The petition is granted as to the claim that there was not sufficient evidence to support the 2001 decision finding petitioner unsuitable for parole; the petition is denied in all other respects.
3. Within thirty days of the date of this order, assuming the commission of no serious disciplinary infractions henceforth, especially infractions of a violent nature, BPT is ordered to calculate petitioner's release date, and petitioner is to be released on parole.
DATED: January 18, 2005.
LAWRENCE K. KARLTON
SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE
XX -- Decision by the Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED
THAT JUDGMENT IS HEREBY ENTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COURT'S ORDER OF 01/19/05
ENTERED: January 19, 2005 [**3]
Irons v. Carey
| Year | 2005 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 408 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2005). |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
Irons v. Carey, 408 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 05/18/2005)
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[2] No. 05-15275
[3] 408 F.3d 1165, 05 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4258, 2005
[4] May 18, 2005
[5] CARL MERTON IRONS, II, PETITIONER - APPELLEE,
v.
TOM L. CAREY, WARDEN, RESPONDENT - APPELLANT.
[6] D.C. No. CV-04-00220-LKK Eastern District of California, Sacramento
[7] FOR PUBLICATION
[8] ORDER
[9] Before: REINHARDT, NOONAN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
[10] The parties are ordered to file supplemental briefs, not to exceed 25 pages, within 28 days from the date of this order. The supplemental briefs shall discuss the constitutionality of the standards that Congress has set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Specifically, the parties should discuss, in light of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), and City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 536 (1997), whether AEDPA unconstitutionally prescribes the sources of law that the Judicial Branch must use in exercising its jurisdiction or unconstitutionally prescribes the substantive rules of decision by which the federal courts must decide constitutional questions that arise in state habeas cases. The parties should consider whether, under the separation of powers doctrine or for any other reason involving the constitutionality of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), this court should decline to apply the AEDPA standards in this case.
[11] This court also certifies the above question to the Attorney General of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2403(a). The Attorney General is permitted to intervene and file a brief, not to exceed 25 pages, within 28 days from the date of this order. If the panel determines that further oral argument would be of assistance, it will schedule such argument and inform the parties, the Attorney General, and any amici at that time. This court also invites interested parties to request leave, within 14 days from the day of this order, to file amicus curiae briefs. Should leave be granted, such parties shall have 21 days from the date thereof to file briefs of not more than 20 pages.
[12] Judge Fernandez does not join in this order.
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[2] No. 05-15275
[3] 408 F.3d 1165, 05 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4258, 2005
[4] May 18, 2005
[5] CARL MERTON IRONS, II, PETITIONER - APPELLEE,
v.
TOM L. CAREY, WARDEN, RESPONDENT - APPELLANT.
[6] D.C. No. CV-04-00220-LKK Eastern District of California, Sacramento
[7] FOR PUBLICATION
[8] ORDER
[9] Before: REINHARDT, NOONAN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
[10] The parties are ordered to file supplemental briefs, not to exceed 25 pages, within 28 days from the date of this order. The supplemental briefs shall discuss the constitutionality of the standards that Congress has set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Specifically, the parties should discuss, in light of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), and City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 536 (1997), whether AEDPA unconstitutionally prescribes the sources of law that the Judicial Branch must use in exercising its jurisdiction or unconstitutionally prescribes the substantive rules of decision by which the federal courts must decide constitutional questions that arise in state habeas cases. The parties should consider whether, under the separation of powers doctrine or for any other reason involving the constitutionality of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), this court should decline to apply the AEDPA standards in this case.
[11] This court also certifies the above question to the Attorney General of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2403(a). The Attorney General is permitted to intervene and file a brief, not to exceed 25 pages, within 28 days from the date of this order. If the panel determines that further oral argument would be of assistance, it will schedule such argument and inform the parties, the Attorney General, and any amici at that time. This court also invites interested parties to request leave, within 14 days from the day of this order, to file amicus curiae briefs. Should leave be granted, such parties shall have 21 days from the date thereof to file briefs of not more than 20 pages.
[12] Judge Fernandez does not join in this order.