There were some raised eyebrows recently when a generally conservative state Court of Appeal in Sacramento reversed former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and reinstated paroles for three murderers, one from Butte County, one from Amador County and another from El Dorado County.

But a closer look shows such decisions are now for the most part business as usual in California’s appellate courts.

At work is a different legal standard for the release of these so-called “lifers,” which was mandated by the California Supreme Court in 2008.

Schwarzenegger did not adhere to that new standard, and scores of appeals that grew out of his intransigence “are now making their way through the courts,” said Oakland attorney Keith Wattley.

The state attorney general’s office, which defends against these challenges, ignored a request for comment. And the office of Gov. Jerry Brown failed to respond to a request for comment from the governor, who since he came to office in January has deferred to the Board of Parole Hearings in most cases.

“In the old days it would have been a headline,” said Wattley, referring to the three decisions within 10 days by the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento. “It’s not unusual any more.”

Wattley, whose practice is devoted almost entirely to lifers’ bids for parole, said, “The board and the governor used to decide these cases solely on historical facts, mainly the circumstances of the crime. In 2008, the (state) Supreme Court said, ‘Stop making decisions based on factors that have nothing to do with public safety.’

“Now,” he said, “there has to be some evidence that the inmate remains dangerous.”

On Aug. 21, 2008, the Supreme Court reinstated the board’s grant of parole to Sandra Lawrence, who had spent 24 years in prison for shooting and repeatedly stabbing her lover’s wife. Govs. Pete Wilson, Gray Davis and Schwarzenegger had scuttled board findings of Lawrence’s suitability for parole.

Good behavior counts

The nature of a long-ago crime, no matter how gruesome, does not outweigh good behavior in prison and current psychological reports, the high court declared.

On June 29, the 3rd District, citing the Lawrence decision, struck down Schwarzenegger’s reversal of paroles granted by the board to Raymond Rodel Walker of Oroville and Gina Sargent of Pioneer in Amador County.

Walker, now 53, was sentenced to 15 years to life on a second-degree murder conviction after a jury found him guilty of killing Kristine Thomas, 38. Her nude and battered body was found May 3, 1986, at the end of a road west of Oroville.

Walker was accused of beating her and then running over her with a car while she was still alive after they left a downtown bar in the early morning.

The board granted Walker parole in 2009, but Schwarzenegger blocked his release, citing the horrendous nature of the crime and expressing concern that Walker “has still failed to obtain insight into his actions.”

A three-justice panel of the 3rd District, however, said all second-degree murders can be characterized as atrocious in one way or another and that standard “would mandate upholding in every case the denial of parole.”

Regarding Walker’s purported lack of insight, the panel said, “the evidence establishes just the opposite.” The 21-page opinion was authored by Associate Justice Harry Hull, who was joined by Presiding Justice Vance W. Raye and Associate Justice George Nicholson.

Sargent was found guilty by a jury in 1981 of second-degree murder after beating her 5-year-old stepdaughter over a period of months until Ilana Sargent finally died of head trauma and brain swelling. The coroner’s report noted nearly 100 scars and more than 100 bruises across every part of Ilana’s body.

Gina Sargent, now 53, was sentenced to 17 years to life.

Based on a number of factors, the board granted parole in December 2007. Again Schwarzenegger reversed, finding her crime to be especially atrocious and questioning whether Sargent ever accepted full responsibility for the murder.

Position not supported

But a three-justice appellate panel found the facts of the crime “do not constitute the requisite quantum of evidence to support a finding that 30 years later a now sober woman, with job training and family support, remains at risk of abusing children if released.”

Additionally, the panel said in its 34-page opinion, Sargent has, since 1998, “steadfastly accepted full responsibility for the death of her stepdaughter.” The opinion was written by Raye, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Ronald B. Robie and M. Kathleen Butz.

On Friday, a three-justice panel of the same court overturned Schwarzenegger’s reversal of the board and reinstated the 2009 parole of Darlene Brazil, now 46.

A 21-year-old fast-food worker in Placerville in 1986, Brazil smothered to death her two children, ages 4 and 1, and then tried to kill herself so they would all “be together” in heaven.

She pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree murder and was sentenced to concurrent terms of 15 years to life.

Following an exemplary prison record, the Board of Parole Hearings concluded she posed a very low risk of danger.

Schwarzenegger again blocked the parole, citing the atrocious nature of the crime. He also claimed Brazil still exhibits many of the characteristics of borderline personality disorder that are “predictive” of current dangerousness, and that she lacks sufficient insight into her crimes.

Again citing the Lawrence decision, the 3rd District justices found that “virtually all of the parole suitability factors favor Brazil.”

The claim by Schwarzenegger of current personality disorder “is not an accurate characterization of the record,” the justices said. Nor is the lack-of-insight claim, they added.

“Because none of the three reasons cited by the governor finds support in the record, we conclude that his reversal of the board’s decision cannot withstand judicial scrutiny,” the panel ruled.

Butz wrote the 29-page opinion with the concurrence of Raye and Associate Justice Elena J. Duarte, a Schwarzenegger appointee.

CRITERIA FOR PAROLE

Before 2008: Cases were decided solely on historical facts, mainly the circumstances of the crime.

Since 2008: Decisions are based on public safety. There must be some evidence that the inmate remains dangerous.

Similar Posts:

Share