In re Shaputis

4 Citing briefs

  1. COLEY (WILLIE CLIFFORD) ON H.C.

    Petitioner’s Reply Brief on the Merits

    Filed November 17, 2011

    The Court’s reasoning in these casesis instructive here. Un re Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1191; In re Shaputis, supra, 44 Cal.4th 1241.) In In re Lawrence, the defendant shot her lover’s wife four times, then stabbed thewife to death with a potato peeler, after becoming enraged by the husband’s endingtheir affair.

  2. BUTLER

    Amicus Curiae Brief of California District Attorneys Association

    Filed May 16, 2017

    As the statewide association of these prosecutors, amicus curiae, CDAA,is familiar and experienced with the issues presented in this proceeding. The undersigned serves as the Supervising Deputy District Attorney of the San Diego County District Attorney’s Lifer Hearing Unit and has filed amicusbriefs on behalf ofCDAA inall of the recentCalifornia Supreme Court lifer/parole cases including In re Vicks (2013) 56 Cal.4th 274 (Vicks), In re Shaputis (2011) 53 Cal.4th 192 (Shaputis IN), In re Shaputis (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1241 (Shaputis I), In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181 (Lawrence), and In re Dannenberg (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1061 (Dannenberg). In addition, the undersigned hasalso filed an amicusbrief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Gilman v. Brown (9th Cir. 1 2016) 814 F.3d 1007.

  3. Plata et al v. Brown et al

    RESPONSE to APRIL 11, 2013 ORDER REQUIRING LIST OF PROPOSED POPULATION REDUCTION MEASURES; COURT-ORDERED PLAN

    Filed May 2, 2013

    See, e.g., In re Lawrence, 44 Cal.4th 1181 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 2008); In re Shaputis, 44 Cal.4th 1241 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 2008). In making these difficult assessments, the Board conducts a comprehensive review that includes examining the crime, the inmate’s psychological risk assessments, current mindset, and information about the inmate’s history and behavior both before and during prison.

  4. VICKS (MICHAEL) ON H.C.

    Non-Title Respondents, Randy Grounds and Board of Parole Hearings, Petition for Review

    Filed June 20, 2011

    He also asserts the imposition ofa five-year deferral, pursuantto the amendments to Penal Code! section 3041.5, subdivision (b), adopted after the voters approved Proposition 9, otherwise knownas the "Victims' Bill of Rights Act of 2008: Marsy's Law"(hereafter Marsy's Law), cannot be applied to him without violating ex post facto principles. We conclude the BPH's decision to deny parole was supported by someevidence, pursuant to the guidance provided by Jn re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181 (Lawrence) All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. and In re Shaputis (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1241. Wealso conclude application of the amendments to Penal Code section 3041.5, subdivision (b), to inmates whose commitment offense was committed prior to the effective date of Marsy's Lawviolates ex post facto principles.