In Re Dannenberg

Bad Law
173 Cal. App. 4th 237·2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 614·92 Cal. Rptr. 3d 647
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 23, 2009H030031California6,463 words

Opinion

Opinion

Mihara, J.

Petitioner John Ernest Dannenberg has been incarcerated since 1986 for the second degree murder of his wife. Although he has had numerous parole hearings, he has repeatedly been found unsuitable for parole due to the gravity of the commitment offense. In 2005, the Board of Parole Hearings (the Board) decided that Dannenberg was suitable for parole and granted him parole, but the Governor reversed the Board’s decision. While the Governor conceded that every factor other than the gravity of the commitment offense favored a finding that Dannenberg is suitable for parole, he concluded that the gravity of the commitment offense alone justified an unsuitability finding.

Dannenberg challenges the Governor’s decision, and we conclude that it is not supported by some evidence. No evidence in the record that was before the Board and the Governor supports a conclusion that, due to the nature of his commitment offense, Dannenberg currently poses an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released. As there is no other evidence that Dannenberg currently poses an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released, we vacate the Governor’s decision and reinstate the Board’s…

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.