holding that "some evidence in the record supports the Governor's conclusion that petitioner remains a threat to public safety"
How later courts described this case
- holding that "some evidence in the record supports the Governor's conclusion that petitioner remains a threat to public safety"
- upholding the Board’s denial of parole because of aggravating pre-conviction factors plus defendant’s present refusal to accept responsibility for his crime and his unstable social and family relationships
- applying the Lawrence standard, but reaching a different result based on the particular facts of that case
- “[Because the paramount consideration for both the Board and the Governor under the governing statutes is whether the inmate currently poses a threat to public safety, and because the inmate’s due process interest in parole mandates a meaningful review of a denial-of-parole decision, the proper articulation of the standard of review is whether there exists ‘some evidence’ that an inmate poses a current threat to public safety, rather than merely some evidence of the existence of a statutory unsuitability factor.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CHIN, J., Concurring.
I agree that some evidence supports the denial of parole in this case, just as it did in the companion case of In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181 [ 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 169 , 190 P.3d 535 ] (Lawrence). As he did in Lawrence , the Governor assessed the petitioner’s case individually and considered all relevant factors before reaching a reasoned decision denying parole. Accordingly, as I stated in my dissent in Lawrence , we must defer to the judgment of the branch of government entrusted with the parole decision. (See In re Dannenberg (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1061 [ 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 417 , 104 P.3d 783 ]; In re Rosenkrantz (2002) 29 Cal.4th 616 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 104 , 59 P.3d 174 ].)
I see no basis to distinguish this case (involving a conviction of second degree murder) from Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th 1181 (involving a conviction of first degree murder) and to release Lawrence but deny parole to *1262 Shaputis. I therefore adhere to the views expressed in my Lawrence dissent CLawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1230 (dis. opn. of Chin, J.)) and, accordingly, concur in the result only.
Baxter, J., and Corrigan, J., concurred.
Petitioner’s petition for a rehearing was denied October 22, 2008. Werdegar, J., did not participate therein.