People v. Jewell CA4/2

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 24, 2015E062185California5,410 words

Opinion

Opinion

I.

INTRODUCTION

The Board of Parole Hearings (the Board) has twice recommended that the

superior court recall defendant Dennis Lloyd Jewell’s sentence and grant him a

compassionate release under Penal Code1 section 1170, subdivision (e). Both times, the

Board concluded defendant was terminally ill with an incurable disease that will kill him

within six months, and that the conditions of his release would not pose a threat to the

public.

The trial court denied the Board’s first recommendation because it concluded the

record did not contain evidence that defendant would actually die within six months. The

trial court also concluded that, because defendant’s postrelease plan changed after the

Board’s recommendation, it could not conclude that releasing Jewell would pose no risk

to the public. In our first opinion, we held the trial court applied too rigid a standard for

determining whether defendant would die within six months, and concluded the record

amply supported the Board’s medical conclusion. (People v. Jewell (June 12, 2014,

E059455) [nonpub. opn.].) However, because neither the Board nor the trial court had

considered defendant’s new postrelease plan, we…

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.