In re DAVID H. McGRAW
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html > <head> <title>In re DAVID H</title> </head> <body> <div> <br/><ins cite="mailto:Author"> </ins> <br/><ins cite="mailto:Author"> </ins> <br/><ins cite="mailto:Author"> </ins> <br/><ins cite="mailto:Author"> </ins> <br/><ins cite="mailto:Author"> </ins> <br/><ins cite="mailto:Author"> </ins> <br/><b ><ins cite="mailto:Author">In re DAVID H. McGRAW</ins></b><b ><ins cite="mailto:Author"></ins></b> <br/><b ><ins cite="mailto:Author"> </ins></b> <br/><b ><ins cite="mailto:Author"> </ins></b> <br/><ins cite="mailto:Author"> </ins> <br/><ins cite="mailto:Author"> </ins> <br/><ins cite="mailto:Author"> </ins> <br/><ins cite="mailto:Author"> </ins> <br/><ins cite="mailto:Author"> </ins> <br/><ins cite="mailto:Author"> </ins> <br/>Filed 3/16/09<ins cite="mailto:Author"></ins> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/><b ><u>CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION</u></b> <br/><b > </b> <br/>IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA <br/>FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT <br/> <br/> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 > <tr > <td width=360 valign=top > <br/>In re <br/> <br/> DAVID H. McGRAW <br/> <br/>On Habeas Corpus. <br/> </td> <td width=274 valign=top > <br/>F054655 <br/> <br/>(Related Kern County Superior Ct. Case No. HC10356A) <br/> <br/><b >MODIFICATION OF OPINION ON DENIAL OF REHEARING </b> <br/><b >[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]</b> <br/> </td> </tr> </table> <br/> <br/><b >THE COURT:</b> <br/> <br/> It is ordered that the opinion herein filed on February 19, 2009, be <ins cite="mailto:Author"><a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">modified</a></ins> as follows: <br/> <br/>1. On page 10, strike the sentence that follows “(Cf. <i >In re Bernadette C. </i>(1982) 127 Cal.App.3d 618, 625.)” and insert the following sentence in its place: “Since the “paramount consideration” at a Board hearing, as clarified by <i >Lawrence </i>and <i >Shaputis, </i>is “whether the inmate currently poses a threat to public safety,” and since “the inmate’s due process interest in parole mandates a meaningful review of a denial-of-parole decision” (<i >Shaputis, supra, </i>44 Cal.4th at p. 1254, citing <i >Lawrence, supra, </i>44 Cal.4th at p. 1191), and since on the record before us we cannot conclude the error was harmless, we will reverse the Board’s decision and will remand the matter to the Board for reconsideration in light of <i >Lawrence </i>and <i >Shaputis</i> within 60 days of the finality of this decision.” <br/> <br/><br > <br > <br clear=all > <br/> This modification does not effect a change in the judgment. <br/> <br/> The petition for rehearing is denied. <br/> <br/> <br/> _____________________ <br/>Gomes, J. <br/>WE CONCUR: <br/> <br/> <br/>_____________________ <br/>Cornell, Acting P. J. <br/> <br/> <br/>_____________________ <br/>Hill, J. <br/><ins cite="mailto:Author"> </ins> <br/><ins cite="mailto:Author"> </ins> <br/><ins cite="mailto:Author"> </ins> <br/><ins cite="mailto:Author">Publication courtesy of <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">California pro bono lawyer directory</a>.</ins> <br/><ins cite="mailto:Author">Analysis and review provided by <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">Chula Vista Property line attorney.</a></ins> <br/><ins cite="mailto:Author"><a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com" target="_blank">San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com</a></ins><ins cite="mailto:Author"></ins> <br/><ins cite="mailto:Author"> </ins> <br/> </div> </body> </html>