CLIENT ALERT MEMORANDUM
December 23, 2002
To: All Police Chiefs and Sheriffs
From: Martin J. Mayer
IN RE ROSENKRANTZ
The California Supreme Court recently ruled that the Governor of California can overrule a decision of the State Board of Prison Terms (Board), regarding the release of a convicted murderer. This firm had the honor of submitting an amicus brief, on behalf of CSSA, CPCA and CPOA, supporting the Office of the Attorney General and the Office of the Governor in this matter.
Robert Rosenkrantz (Petitioner) had been convicted of second degree murder and had been sentenced to an intermediate term of imprisonment for 15 years to life. In June 2000, the Board found the petitioner suitable for parole and set a parole date. The Governor subsequently reversed the Board’s decision and suit was filed in the superior court. The superior court concluded that the “Governor’s decision was based upon an impermissible general policy of automatically denying parole to prisoners convicted of murder.” The Court of Appeal upheld the superior court’s decision finding no evidence to support the Governor’s reversing the Board’s decision.
The authority of the Governor to grant or deny parole, subsequent to the Board’s determination, is provided by Article V, section 8(b) of the California Constitution and California Penal Code section 3041.2 which states in part: “No decision of the parole authority of this State…shall become effective for a period of 30 days, during which the Governor may only affirm, modify, or reverse the decision….”
The California Supreme Court granted review to determine, primarily, whether the decision of the Governor, finding a prisoner unsuitable for parole, was subject to judicial review and, if so, under what standard.
The Supreme Court concluded that the Governor’s decision, granting or denying parole, was subject to a limited judicial review to determine only whether the decision was supported by “some evidence.”
The Supreme Court then addressed the standards that govern the Board’s decision as to the suitability of parole for a prisoner. They found, that the governing statute ” provides that the Board must grant parole unless it determines that public safety requires a lengthier period of incarceration for the individual because of the gravity of the offense underlying the conviction.”
The Court then applied the “some evidence” standard of review and concluded that the Governor could rely upon the circumstances of the crime in deciding that the Petitioner was not suitable for release; that the Governor properly conducted and relied upon an individualized consideration of the factors concerning parole suitability; and that the Governor possessed the authority to determine that the Petitioner was a public safety threat.
In a press release following the Court’s decision, the Governor specifically thanked CSSA, CPCA and CPOA for the Amicus Brief filed in this case. This shows, once again, the influence law enforcement can have in major court decisions. That influence is even greater when both management and labor are joined together in support or opposition of a law enforcement issue.
As always, we urge that you confer with your agency’s legal advisor regarding this matter. If you have questions or wish to discuss this Memo in greater detail, please do not hesitate to communicate with Martin Mayer at 714-446-1400 or mjm@jones-mayer.com.
[The Law Offices of Jones & Mayer located in Fullerton, California focus its practice on representing the interests of public entities as its City Attorney, in labor negotiations, in defending tort litigation and civil rights litigation. Martin Mayer focuses his practice in the area of representing cities, counties and the State on matters arising out of their respective law enforcement agencies.]
*********
Vol.17#10 Website