In Re Criscione

Good Law
173 Cal. App. 4th 60·2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 559·92 Cal. Rptr. 3d 258
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 17, 2009H032680California6,084 words

Opinion

Opinion

Premo, J.

Petitioner Arthur Sam Criscione was convicted in 1979 of the second degree murder of his girlfriend. He was sentenced to 15 years to life. Following a 13th subsequent parole consideration hearing in 2007, a panel representing the Board of Parole Hearings (Board) again found Criscione unsuitable for parole. Criscione petitioned the superior court for a writ of habeas corpus. The superior court granted the writ and remanded the matter to the Board. Respondent J. Hartley, acting warden at Avenal State Prison (Warden) appeals from that order.

I. Introduction

Judicial review of decisions by the Board or the Governor to deny parole to inmates serving indeterminate life terms is governed by the highly deferential “some evidence” standard of review. (In re Rosenkrantz (2002) 29 Cal.4th 616 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 104 , 59 P.3d 174 ] (Rosenkrantz).) Until recently, appellate courts have struggled to apply this standard but In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181, 1205 [ 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 169 , 190 P.3d 535 ] (Lawrence), and the companion case, In re Shaputis (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1241 [ 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 213 , 190 P.3d 573 ] (Shaputis), have now clarified that a decision to deny parole comports…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.