In re Henry
Filed 6/1/11 In re Henry CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
| In re TRESIA HENRY, on Habeas Corpus. | B228323 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BH006882) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Peter P. Espinoza, Judge. Affirmed.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Phillip Lindsay, Linnea D. Piazza, Kathleen R. Walton and Michael Rhoads, Deputy Attorneys General, for Appellant.
Heidi L. Rummel and Michael J. Brennan for Respondent.
* * * * * * * * * *
After serving 24 years in prison on a sentence of 17 years to life for second degree murder, respondent Tresia Henry was granted release on parole by the Board of Parole Hearings (Board). On July 16, 2009, then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (Governor) issued an order, pursuant to Penal Code section 3041.2, reversing the Board's parole decision. The trial court, relying on In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181 (Lawrence), granted Henry's subsequent petition for a writ of habeas corpus, finding the Governor's reversal order was not supported by evidence of Henry's current dangerousness. The Governor appeals, contending the trial court exceeded its authority by reweighing the evidence and substituting its judgment for that of the Governor's on the issue of Henry's suitability for parole.[1] We conclude the trial court applied the correct standard of review, as enunciated in Lawrence, and properly discharged its duties in granting Henry's petition. We therefore affirm.
BACKGROUND
In 1984, Henry was 24 years old and had been addicted to alcohol and drugs for several years. As a child, Henry's mother had been incarcerated, and she was raised by her grandparents. During those years, she was molested by boyfriends of an older half sister.
One summer night in 1984, Henry was out of money and unable to sell personal property or borrow from friends and family to buy drugs. She was desperate for a â€
| Description | After serving 24 years in prison on a sentence of 17 years to life for second degree murder, respondent Tresia Henry was granted release on parole by the Board of Parole Hearings (Board). On July 16, 2009, then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (Governor) issued an order, pursuant to Penal Code section 3041.2, reversing the Board's parole decision. The trial court, relying on In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181 (Lawrence), granted Henry's subsequent petition for a writ of habeas corpus, finding the Governor's reversal order was not supported by evidence of Henry's current dangerousness. The Governor appeals, contending the trial court exceeded its authority by reweighing the evidence and substituting its judgment for that of the Governor's on the issue of Henry's suitability for parole.[1] We conclude the trial court applied the correct standard of review, as enunciated in Lawrence, and properly discharged its duties in granting Henry's petition. We therefore affirm. |
| Rating |


