In re Morganti

Good Law
139 Cal. Rptr. 3d 430·2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 361·204 Cal. App. 4th 904·2012 WL 1022042
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 28, 2012No. A132610California18,120 words

Opinion

Concurrence in Part

Kline, J.

I concur in the majority opinion in all respects save one.

Christopher Morganti claims not only that the denial by the Board of Parole Hearings (the Board) of his request for parole is unsupported by “some evidence,” but also that the Board’s disregard for the statutory framework of parole and failure to accord parole applicants individualized consideration deprives him and implicitly all life prisoners a liberty interest safeguarded by article I, section 7, of the California Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Producing evidence showing that life prisoners are almost never granted a parole release date at the time the Legislature contemplated a date would ordinarily be granted, Morganti requested the opportunity to conduct discovery and have an evidentiary hearing in order to establish a factual basis for his due process claim. The trial court denied the request on the ground Morganti’s constitutional argument was “conclusory and fails to state a prima facie claim for relief.” Because I believe the ruling erroneous, I would remand this case to the trial court with directions to grant Morganti’s request for discovery and an…

Lead Opinion

Richman, J.

—The People appeal from an order granting Christopher Morganti’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and directing the Board of Parole Hearings (the Board) to hold a new hearing to determine whether to fix a release date for Morganti. Like the trial court, we conclude that, even applying the ultralenient “some evidence” standard, the Board’s decision that Morganti is unsuitable for parole cannot be upheld. Accordingly, we affirm the superior court’s decision granting habeas corpus relief.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

Preconviction History

Morganti was bom in Healdsburg in 1951 into an intact and religious Ttalian-American family. He suffered no abuse or neglect or other trauma as a *908 child, and has no history of juvenile convictions. He attended parochial schools until he graduated from high school in 1970, when he enrolled in Santa Rosa Junior College. He dropped out of junior college before the end of his first year and obtained employment as a carpenter. During the next five years, while working as a carpenter, he drank beer and smoked marijuana regularly. He gradually became addicted to cocaine, by the late 1970’s was “shooting” cocaine intravenously, and in…

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.