In Re Tokhmanian

Good Law
168 Cal. App. 4th 1270·2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 2380·86 Cal. Rptr. 3d 250
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 4, 2008B208427California2,313 words

Opinion

Opinion

Croskey, J.

A prisoner serving an indeterminate life term for murder was granted parole by a parole consideration panel (the panel). Concluding that a procedural error took place at the hearing before the panel, the Board of Parole Hearings (the board) disapproved the panel’s decision, and directed that a new parole hearing be scheduled. The prisoner sought relief from the board’s decision by means of a petition for habeas corpus. Concluding that the board’s decision was in error, the trial court vacated the board’s decision granting rehearing and reinstated the panel’s decision granting parole. Within 30 days of the trial court’s decision, the Governor reversed the grant of parole. The prisoner again sought relief by means of a petition for habeas corpus. The trial court concluded that the Governor’s decision was untimely, and granted the petition. The prison warden appeals. We conclude the Governor’s decision was timely, and therefore reverse.

CONTROLLING LAW

Before discussing the undisputed facts of this case, a brief outline of the parole review process is helpful. Inmates are granted parole consideration hearings before panels. While panel decisions often indicate that they…

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.