In re Palmer

Good Law
13 Cal. App. 5th 795·2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 639·221 Cal. Rptr. 3d 154·2017 WL 3166742
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 26, 2017A147177California15,358 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Richman, J.

*798 INTRODUCTION

In 1988, when he was 17 years old, petitioner William Palmer pled guilty to kidnapping for robbery. Sentenced to life with the possibility of parole, Palmer has come before the State of California Board of Parole Hearings (Board) 10 times, without success. The most recent hearing was on June 2, 2015, when the Board denied parole, with a five-year denial, expressly rejecting Palmer's request at the conclusion of the hearing to calculate his base term and adjusted base term.

*157 On August 21, 2015, represented by counsel from the same firm that has represented him since 2008, Palmer requested reconsideration pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 15, sections 2028, subdivision (b), 2041, subdivision (h), and 2042, on the grounds the Board had: (1) wrongfully refused to set a base term and an adjusted base term for Palmer's commitment offense, and (2) applied the incorrect standard at Palmer's parole hearing by failing to give great weight to the youth offender factors.

By letter of September 21, the Board denied Palmer's request for reconsideration, stating that the Board had given appropriate weight to the youth offender factors at Palmer's hearing.…

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.