This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Modification: In re McGhee

Ruling by

Stuart R. Pollak

Lower Court

Alameda County Superior Court

Lower Court Judge

Daniel J. Healy

Proposition 57 mandates parole consideration after inmates serve full term of primary offense; 'two-tiered' system disqualifying certain otherwise eligible-inmates does not comport with the proposition.





Court

California Courts of Appeal 1DCA/4

Cite as

2019 DJDAR 4243

Published

May 20, 2019

Filing Date

May 16, 2019

Opinion Type

Modification

Disposition Type

Petition Granted


In re TIJUE ADOLPHUS McGHEE

on Habeas Corpus.

 

No. A153721

(Alameda County

Super. Ct. No. FCR331651)

California Courts of Appeal

First Appellate District

Division Four

Filed May 16, 2019

 

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION;

NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT

 

Trial judge: Honorable Daniel Healy

 

Counsel for petitioner: Jonathan Soglin and L. Richard Braucher by appointment of the Court of Appeal

 

Counsel for respondent:

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General,

Phillip J. Lindsay, Senior Assistant Attorney General

Sara J. Romano, Supervising Deputy Attorney General Brian C. Kinney, Deputy Attorney General

 

THE COURT:

 

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on April 29, 2019, be modified as follows:

 

On page 10, at the end of the first sentence in the last paragraph insert: ---to "ensure[] that the board focuses its resources on inmates who are more likely to be found suitable for parole." (Statement of Reasons, p. 17.), and delete the second sentence, so that the first two sentences read:

 

We do not gainsay the practical issues presented by implementation of section 32, subdivision (a)(1) as intended, nor do we fail to recognize the sensible rationale underlying the department's two-tiered scheme---to "ensure[] that the board focuses its resources on inmates who are more likely to be found suitable for parole." (Statement of Reasons, p. 17.) Nonetheless, although an inmate may not be paroled soon after committing such an offense, the appearance before the board may still serve a constructive purpose.

 

There is no change in the judgment.

 

Date: May 16, 2019 Acting P.J.

#273204

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424