In re Miranda

Good Law
120 Cal. Rptr. 3d 461·191 Cal. App. 4th 757·2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 12
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 7, 2011No. C062411California1,852 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Nicholson, J.

Petitioner Damian M. Miranda petitions this court for writ of habeas corpus. He alleges the Board of Parole Hearings (Board) violated his due process rights at a parole-suitability hearing in 2007 because its determination that he was not suitable for parole was not supported by “some evidence” that he remained dangerous. While Miranda’s petition was pending, he was released from prison after the Board found him suitable for parole in a new hearing.

*760 Despite his release, Miranda argues that this petition is not moot because, if we find that the Board violated his due process rights in the 2007 parole-suitability hearing, we can credit the time he should have been released toward his parole period. We reject this argument against mootness because, as the California Supreme Court recently held, the remedy for a violation of due process at a parole-suitability hearing is a new hearing comporting with due process. (In re Prather (2010) 50 Cal.4th 238 [ 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 291 , 234 P.3d 541 ] (Prather).) Because Miranda has been released, a new hearing is unnecessary. Therefore, even assuming the Board violated Miranda’s due process rights at the 2007 parole-suitability…

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.