In re Palmer

Good Law
245 Cal. Rptr. 3d 708·33 Cal. App. 5th 1199
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 5, 2019A154269California12,371 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Kline, J.

*1202 William Palmer, serving a sentence of life in prison with the possibility of parole, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus to challenge his continued incarceration for a crime committed in 1988 as cruel and unusual punishment under article 1, section 17, of the California Constitution and *712 the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Such challenges based on the length of prison time already served are rare: Most claims of constitutionally excessive punishment challenge sentences when first imposed, looking prospectively at the time the offender will serve. Such challenges rarely succeed, as courts generally defer to determinations of the punishments appropriate to particular offenses made by legislative representatives of the People. Indeterminately sentenced inmates, however, serve terms whose length is fixed not by the Legislature but by the decisions of the Board of Parole Hearings (Board) as to whether and when the prisoner has become "suitable" for release on parole. As will be seen, the serial denials of parole Palmer experienced resulted in punishment so disproportionate to his individual culpability for the offense he committed, that it must…

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.