Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Olyric Robinson, Petitioner v. California

O F¥

FILED

Ml

LvJiytiffgfTTBiri

Case No.

f-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OLYRIC ROBINSON.

APPELLANT

v.

THE PEOPLE.

RESPONDENTS

APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI / WRIT OF REVIEW PURSUANT TO RULE 10

OF RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Olyric Robinson - E53822

Address: San Quentin State Prison, 3-n-3, San Quentin, CA, 94972

Appellant, Pro Se

*'

I.

1.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

On July 15, 2021, the Appellant was arrested for an alleged violation of his parole on

account of committing a felony Hit and Run-Person(Injury) under Vehicle Code

Section 20001.

2.

Thereafter, on September 10, 2021, the Trial Court, in Case No. 21PA012234

concluded that the Appellant/Defendant had violated the terms of his parole by fleeing

the scene of an injury accident, and thus, the Appellant was remanded back to the

custody of CDCR for future parole reconsideration hearings (“Trial Court ORDER”).

A copy of the Trial Court Order is herein attached as:

Exhibit A (Trial Court ORDER; along with an excerpt attachment)

THE TRIAL COURT’S CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT; (PGS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 34, AND 35) SHOWING HOW

THE COURT DID NOT ALLOW RELEVANT TESTIMONY REGARDING A MANDATED STEP NOT UTILIZED.

(IE. USAGE OF THE PAROLE DECISION MAKING INSTRUMENT -PVDMl).

3.

The matter went on to the Court of Appeals, Third Appellate District, bearing Case No.

C095260, where the Appellant challenged the Trial Court Order for lack of substantial

evidence. However, the Appellate Court concluded that there was substantial evidence

3

below, the Appellant requests that this Court grants the petition and the requested relief

in favor of the Appellant and against the Respondents.

6.

In view of the above, the following questions are presented:

(i)

Whether the state courts of California rendered decisions in violation of precedents

established by other state courts of last resort or United States Court of Appeals?

(ii)

Whether the Appellant was denied his due process rights under the U.S. Constitution,

Amdt.l4.S1.3? and

(iii) Whether the Appellant’s parole was revoked in error?

n.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

7.

Olyric Robinson petitions this Court for a Writ of Certiorari to review the judgment of

the Supreme Court of California.

HI.

8.

JURISDICTION

The Supreme Court of California entered the Denial Decision on March 22, 2023

(Exhibit C). Hence, this petition is timely pursuant to Rule 13 (Review on Certiorari:

Time for Petitioning) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States.

9.

This Court has jurisdiction under U.S.C., Title 18, Section 1254.

IV.

10.

STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

The case involves Appellant’s due process rights under the U.S. Constitution and

obligatory provisions set forth in CA Title 15, which entitles Appellant parolee to

4

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

1

Table of Authorities.

2

Cases:.

2

Statutes:.........................................................................................................................

2

I.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED....................................................................................

3

II.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI.......................................................

4

III.

JURISDICTION...................................................................................................

4

IV.

STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED..........................................................

4

V.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.............................................................................

4

VI.

LEGAL ARGUMENTS FOR THE INSTANT WRIT........................................

5

Standard ofReview:.....................................................................................................

5

Conflict with Decision ofU.S. Court ofAppeals:......................................................

5

Conflict with Decision(s) ofAnother State Court ofLast Resort:............................

6

Prayer(s):...............................................................................................................

7

Exhibit A (Trial Court ORDER; ALONG WITH AN EXCERPT ATTACHMENT).

8

ExhibitB (THIRD DISTRICT Appellate Court Decision).........................................

9

Exhibit C (PETITION FOR REHEARING Denial Order).........................................

10

EXHIBIT D (CA supreme COURT DENIAL ORDER)............................................

11

VII.

1

Table of Authorities

Cases:

Ford v. Wainwright (5th Cir. 1977) 549 F.2d 981, 982

Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471,482

In re In re Haverty (1980) 94 Wn.2d 621, 622

Statutes:

Rule 13 (Review on Certiorari: Time for Petitioning) Rules of the Supreme Court of the

United States

U.S. Constitution, Amdt.l4.S1.3

2

certain rights for a fair determination on revocation of his parole. The text of each of

these provisions is contained in Exhibit D.

V.

11.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant, Olyric Robinson, was arrested on July 15, 2021 for a violation of his parole.

The violation alleged Condition 4 of the conditions of his parole, forbidding criminal

conduct, by committing a felony Hit and Run (Veh. Code§ 20001, Person-Injury).

12.

On September 10, 2021, the Trial Court concluded that the Appellant/Defendant had

violated the terms of his parole and thus, the Appellant was remanded back to the

custody of CDCR for future parole reconsideration hearings (Exhibit A).

13.

In the Court of Appeals, Third District, it briefly summarized the procedure(s) set in

place by CA Title 15 §3768.3. However, some of the mandated procedures were

excluded from the Appellate Court Decision. It vaguely summarized the procedure(s)

as, “A parolee is subject to arrest at any time during the period ofparole ifany parole

agent...has a probable cause to believe that the parolee is violating any term or

condition of his or her parole. (Pen. Code, §3000.08, subd. (c.) The parole agent may

petition to revoke parole, (ID., subd. (f))."

14.

Thereafter, the Petition of Review was also denied by the Supreme Court of California

under its Denial Decision it blatantly disregarded the of errors of law committed by the

Trial Court and Appellate Court.

VI.

LEGAL ARGUMENTS FOR THE INSTANT WRIT

Standard ofReview:

15.

In rendering the Trial Court Order, the Appellate Court Decision, Petition for Rehearing

Decision and the CA Supreme Court Denial Decision, the lower courts and the CA

State Supreme Court failed to take into account that the Appellant was not provided his

due process rights prior to the revocation of his parole. This is in direct violation of

precedents established by the United States Court of Appeals which mandate due

process considerations as obligatory before parole revocation.

16.

Accordingly, the Appellant is filing this instant petition pursuant to Rule 10(b) of the

Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States which states that a petition for a Writ

of Certiorari will be granted if “(b) a state court of last resort has decided an important

federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last

resort or of a United States court of appeals[Emphasis Added]

Conflict with Decision of U.S. Court ofAppeals:

17.

In Ford v. Wainwright (5th Cir. 1977) 549 F.2d 981, 982, the United States Court of Appeals

for Fifth Circuit ruled that “A parole revocation hearing unreasonably delayed cannot

5

meaningfully be remedied by a new.' further delayed proceeding. Rather an unreasonable delay

in holding a revocation hearing gives rise to the presumption of prejudice. In such

circumstances, a parole violator warrant must be quashed.” [Emphasis Added] In the instant

case, the Appellant was denied a preliminary hearing altogether. Therefore, the decision of

revocation of his parole must be quashed by the Supreme Court.

18.

The Appellant also highlights an error of law in Appellate Court Decision, which stated

that “ Upon finding that a person has violated the conditions ofparole, the court shall

have the authority to, revoke parole and order the person to confinement in a county

jail. Again, the Appellant was denied his due process rights. A preliminary hearing did

not take place within fifteen (15) days of the DAPO attest, which is incumbent as per

Morrissey u Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471. The Appellant was constitutionally entitled

to a preliminary hearing, which did not take place. “Parolees facing revocation are

entitled to due process protections. (Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471, 482 [33

L.Ed.2d 484, 92 S.Ct. 2593].)

Conflict with Becisiom(s) ofAnother State Court ofLast Resort:

19.

In In re In re Hmverty (1980) 94 Wn.2d 621, 622 [618 P.2d 1011, 1011], the Supreme Court of

Washington held that “A parolee's due process rights to a hearing before being incarceratedfor

violation of a condition ofparole are that there must be an opportunity for a hearing, if it is

desired by the parolee, prior to the final decision on revocation by the parole authority, This

hearing must be the basis for more than determining probable cause; it must lead to a final

6

evaluation of any contested relevant facts and consideration ofwhether the facts as determined

warrant revocation. The parolee must have an opportunity to be heard and to show, if he can,

that he does not violate the conditions, apparently not applicable in the case of a conviction or,

if he does, that circumstances in mitigation suggest that the violation does not

warrant revocation.” Further, “The parolee must have an opportunity to explain why a

subsequent conviction should not result in parole revocation. This "opportunity to explain" is to

occur before the body vested with parole revocation authority, the Board of Prison Terms and

ParolesIn re In re Haverty (1980) 94 Wn.2d 621, 622 [618 P.2d 1011, 1011], Hence, the

provision of due process rights is extremely incumbent to the American justice system

and hence warrants an action by the instant Supreme Court to take notice of the Trial

Court Order, Appellate Court Decision, Petition for ReHearing Decision and Denial

Decision by the Supreme Court of California.

20.

The aforementioned courts rendered decisions in blatant violation of precedents set by

other state courts of last resort. The Appellant was denied his due process and/or an

opportunity to explain and argue that there was lack of utilization of PVDMI, which is

crucial and mandatory. Moreover, an arraignment hearing was scheduled for the

Appellant to enter a plea. With respect to the PVDMI, the Appellant could have argued

during the hearing that there is also no evidence of any mandated CDCR form 1500,

that ought to be generated prior to a parole revocation hearing. The CDCR form 1500

was generated a year after the Appellant’s arrest, which is a blatant violation of the law

4. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Petition for ReHearing before the Third District

Appellate Court, bearing (the same) Case No. C095260, requesting a reconsideration

of the decision issued on the case. The Petition for Review was denied by the Third

District Appellate Court.

A copy of the Appellate Court Decision is herein attached as:

EXHIBIT C (PETITION FOR REHEARING DECISION)

5. And a final state level Petition for Review was sought before the Supreme Court of

California, bearing Case No. S278672, requesting review of the Appellate Court

Decision and Trial Court Order (“Petition for Review”)was filed. However, on

March 22, 2023, the Petition for Review was denied by the Supreme Court of

California (“Denial Decision”).

(A copy of the Denial Decision is herein attached as:

Exhibit C (CA SUPREME COURT DENIAL DECISION)

6.

Now, the Appellant is filing this instant Petition for Writ of Certiorari before the

Supreme Court of the United States on the grounds that the Appellant has exhausted all

other available remedies under the law and that a state court of last resort has decided

an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state

court of last resort or of a United States Court of Appeals. For the reasons set herein

and rights enumerated under the U.S. Constitution. If an adequate hearing opportunity

was provided, the Appellant could have argued that due to errors in Appellant’s parole

revocation process, the Appellant has not been rightfully entitled to any possible

remedies with the recommendation of his PVDMI results. Further, it is also unclear as

to why a copy of his CDCR form 1500 was not included in the court filing(s) prior to

the parole recommendation hearing. Although the Parole Violation Report was

included, the recommendations from a PVDMI that was utilized prior to the hearing

was not. Moreover, it was alleged on the PVR that intermediate sanctions were

considered. However, the Appellant could have maintained that this is untrue and

immediate sanctions were not even listed in the report.

I.

21.

PrayerCsI;

In view of the above, it is humbly requested before this honorable Court that the Court

grants this writ and the requested relief in favor of Appellant and against the

Respondents.

22.

Further, it is requested that this Court overrules the Trial Court Order, the Appellate

Court Decision, the Petition for Rehearing Decision and the Denial Decision from the

CA Supreme Court for violating the Appellant’s mandatory and constitutionally

guaranteed due process rights.

7

23.

Any other relief, which this honorable Court deems fit and proper, may also be granted

to the Appellant. This petition for a Writ of Certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Olvric Robinson

Olyric Robinson - E53822

San Quentin State Prison, 3-n-3

San Quentin, CA, 94972

Appellant, Pro Se

Date: June 16,2023