In Re Gray

Good Law
151 Cal. App. 4th 379·2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 845·59 Cal. Rptr. 3d 724·2007 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5911
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 24, 2007B197193California11,002 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kitching, J.

INTRODUCTION

In this original writ proceeding, we conclude that the Governor’s decision finding petitioner Henry Richard Gray (Gray) unsuitable for parole is not supported by “some evidence.” (In re Rosenkrantz (2002) 29 Cal.4th 616, 626 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 104 , 59 P.3d 174 ] (Rosenkrantz).) We therefore grant Gray’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

In 1980, a jury found petitioner Gray guilty of second degree murder with the use of a firearm. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 12022.5.) The trial court sentenced Gray to 15 years to life in prison. The trial court stayed the two-year term for the firearm enhancement.

On January 27, 2005, the Board of Parole Hearings (the Board) determined Gray was suitable for parole. On June 16, 2005, the Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, reversed the decision of the Board. Gray filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which the trial - court and this court summarily denied. The California Supreme Court ordered this court to vacate the summary denial and to issue an order to show cause returnable in the superior court as to why the Governor did not abuse his discretion by reversing the parole determination of the 2005 Board.

On January 12,…

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.