Kunkler

Kunkler v. Muntz

Good Law
226 F. App'x 669
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 7, 2007No. 06-55555California853 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

The State of California, on behalf of Madelene Muntz, Warden of Chuckawalla Valley State Prison, appeals from an order granting Edgar Kunkler’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We review de novo a district court’s decision to grant a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Yee v. Duncan, 463 F.3d 893, 897 (9th Cir.2006). Our review of Kunkler’s petition is guided by the deferential standard of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). Sass v. Cal. Bd. of Prison Terms, 461 F.3d 1123, 1127 (9th Cir.2006).

Kunkler was considered for parole ten times since he became eligible in 1991. The California Board of Prison Terms (“the Board”) denied parole at his first seven hearings because of the gravity of Kunkler’s offense and his prior record. At his eighth hearing on August 30, 2000, the *670 Board found him suitable for parole. Governor Gray Davis reversed the Board’s decision. On September 1, 2004, at Kunkler’s tenth hearing, the Board again found he was suitable for parole. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger reversed the Board’s decision, finding Kunkler posed an unreasonable risk of danger to society because…

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.