# In re Shaputis

> California Supreme Court · August 21, 2008 · 44 Cal. 4th 1241

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5452509

## Case

- **Full name:** In re RICHARD SHAPUTIS on Habeas Corpus
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 21, 2008
- **Citations:** 44 Cal. 4th 1241; 82 Cal. Rptr. 3d 213; 190 P.3d 573; 2008 Cal. LEXIS 10169
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Chin
- **Judges:** Chin, George
- **Cited by:** 150 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5452509

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that "some evidence in the record supports the Governor's conclusion that petitioner remains a threat to public safety"
- applying the Lawrence standard, but reaching a different result based on the particular facts of that case

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5452509. Public record. Not legal advice.