Filed 9/6/12 In re White
CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
IN 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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re
GEORGE EDWARD WHITE,
on Habeas Corpus.
H036936
(Santa Clara County
Super. Ct. No. 58822)
In
1975, petitioner George Edward White was convicted of the
Martin. White shot Martin six times in
the back of the head as she lay on her bed, because she, according to White,
owed him approximately $10,000 for drugs he had sold her. Martin’s body was discovered by her
boyfriend, William Wright, also a drug dealer.
Initially sentenced to death, White’s sentence was subsequently commuted
to life in prison.
On April 8, 2010, the Board of Parole
Hearings (Board) found White unsuitable for parole. The Santa Clara County Superior Court granted
White’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and ordered the Board to conduct a
new hearing for him within 100 days. The
superior court found the Board utilized a disfavored “ ‘weigh[ing] analysis’ ”
rather than applying the “nexus” test in concluding that White is unsuitable
for parole.
Respondent
Gary Swarthout, acting warden of the California State Prison, Solano (Warden),
appeals from the order. He argues there
is some evidence in the record to support the conclusion that White poses a
current risk of danger to society.
We agree there was some evidence to support
the Board’s conclusion that White was unsuitable for parole and shall reverse.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
A. The 2010 Board hearing
At the
outset of the hearing, the Board confirmed that White had waived his right to
an attorney and was representing himself.
White acknowledged receiving the documents referenced in the hearing
checklist, but indicated he had neither read them nor brought them to the
hearing. White said he was prepared to
proceed and when asked why he had not read the documents, he said, “I just
didn’t want to read [them].”
One of the
panel members responded, “Sir, you show up in here without a packet. You’re asking for parole today. I’m the Deputy Commissioner. I got all these files I’m going through. We have the District Attorney that have
packets. [Sic.] And you have the
Commissioner that have [sic] all this
paperwork concerning you. You show up
here with nothing and say you’re ready to go forward. How can you present relevant information that
you are suitable for parole without even reading your packet, not even giving
us the respect of bringing the packet to the Board with you”
White said
he did not need a packet, because he “lived all of it.”
1. The life crime
The Board
related the facts of the commitment offense as follows.
“On August
26th, 1974, at approximately 2:30 a.m. the body of Betsy Delores Martin was
discovered in a pool of blood in one of the bedrooms of her residence in Palo
Alto, California. The body was discovered
by the victim’s boyfriend, William Wright.
Autopsy revealed that the victim had at least four entry wounds, bullet
wounds to the rear head and six exit wounds to the victim’s face. Two entrance wounds were made at the base of
the skull and without powder burns. A
large hole located in the center of the rear skull area was made by at least
two bullets. The powder burns suggested
the weapon was fired at close range.
Further examination revealed massive brain damage and a severed spinal
cord. Other bruises all discovered on
the victim’s back which may have been caused by some type of striking
blow. The firearm that inflicted the
injuries was never recovered. It was
consistent with a nine millimeter.
Wright reported that various items were missing from the residence at
the time the victim’s body was discovered.
Those items included pieces of the victim’s jewelry, two silver bars and
a yellow plastic bag containing a small quantity of marijuana. Detectives issued a notice to the jewelry
stores out in the immediate area. On
August 29th, 1974, the owner of Rapp’s Jewelry contacted the Palo Alto Police
Department. Mr. Rapp reported that on
August 26th, 1974, approximately 12 noon an individual identified as Erwin
Willie Owens sold him two rings and a pocket watch and offered to sell him two
silver bars. During the transaction
Owens was with another male identified as--that he was unable to identify. Wright identified the items as property
belonging to the victim. The two rings,
the pocket watches were found to be missing when the body was discovered. On August 30th, 1974, at approximately three
a.m. detectives observed and arrested Owens.
Just prior to arrest, Owens exited the passenger door in a vehicle by a
man subsequently identified as George White.
When Owens exited the passenger side of the vehicle, he was observed to
be holding a revolver which he proceeded to discard in a nearby planter
box. The weapon had been stolen in a
residential burglary which occurred on March 14, 1974, in Menlo Park. Detectives obtained a consent search of
White’s mother’s residence. During the
course of that consensual search, they recovered a quantity of nine millimeter
ammunition from underneath the bed in a room normally occupied by White. On September 1, 1974, detectives interviewed
White’s former girlfriend, Ms. Robertson.
She stated that on August 26th, 1974, she was awoke [
George White and two of his friends identified as Ronald and Erwin. White told her that he had just killed a
white girl. He displayed an automatic
pistol which he had removed from his waistband.
Ms. Robertson indicated she observed blood on the gun. When she asked--White asked Ms. Robertson to
inspect his clothing to see if she could see any blood stains after which he
showed her some jewelry. The three left
the house. Ms. Robertson indicated the
last time she saw the weapon was in Moore’s[
possession on August 26th--August 28th, 1974.
While White was in custody, he placed a telephone call to Ronald
Bradford. While collecting physical
evidence at the scene of the murder, a latent fingerprint was found that this
was made [sic] by Ronald Bradford and
Bradford was placed under arrest.”
White
confirmed that this was what happened, and said he had nothing to add to this
account. He admitted shooting the
victim, and said he did so because he was “[t]rying to get some money” she owed
him for “[n]arcotic transactions.” White
claimed the victim owed him $10,000 for drugs, even though her boyfriend was a
drug dealer. The Board noted that the victim could not repay him if she
were dead and asked why White killed her if she really owed him money. White responded, “That’s a good
question.” When asked if he had an
answer to that question, White said, “No.”
White
denied sexually assaulting the victim, did not know if she had been sexually
assaulted and could not recall if there had been any testimony at trial about
her being sexually assaulted. He said he
was not charged with sexual assault. He
did not know why the victim had sperm in her vagina and anus as reported in the
autopsy, and could not explain how the bedspread pattern became imprinted on
the victim’s right thigh and leg.
When asked
how he felt about the victim’s death, White said, “Well, I feel bad about it”
and that he had previously expressed remorse to the Board and in his
psychological evaluations. However, he
acknowledged he did not really talk about the crime during the last several
parole hearings. White had never written
a letter of remorse to the victim’s family, but said that if the victim’s
mother were “standing right there,” he would tell her “how much I was sorry
what happened to her daughter. Her
daughter didn’t deserve that.”
White said
the victim was the intended target, and did not recall that her boyfriend, the
drug dealer, was the actual target. He
admitted it was an “execution style slaying,” saying “You don’t shoot nobody in
the head by accident.” The victim was
lying on the bed, and White put the gun against her head and pulled the
trigger. He denied telling anyone
afterwards, “I killed me a white girl.”
He denied having a gun when he, Owens and Bradford were talking in front
of Robertson, and denied giving Robertson any jewelry.
The Board
asked White how he felt about his initial death sentence and he said, “That was
the appropriate sentence for what I did.”
He continued, “And if they executed me, that would have been what I
deserved. . . . Now I got life in
prison, and I’m asking for another chance.”
When asked
why he felt he was qualified for parole, White responded, “I did done my
time.” After further prompting about his
efforts at rehabilitation, White said “I did done everything that the Board
required me to do. I done everything
that I wanted to do. . . . I did went to
a trade. . . . [¶] . . . I went to NA
for 18, 19 years. [¶] . . . [¶] I did been to Cat-X. [¶] . . . [¶] And that’s
it. That’s all the State has
offered. They don’t have nothing
else.”
The Board
asked White what difficulties he expected to encounter in reentering society,
and he said, “Something like finding a job.”
After being prompted to relate other hurdles he might encounter if
paroled, White said, “I don’t think it’s going to be that complicated.”
2. Social history
As set
forth in his 2009 psychological evaluation, White was born July 23, 1950, in
San Mateo, California. He is the third
oldest of nine siblings. His parents
separated when he was four years old, and he and his siblings lived with his
mother thereafter. White’s father worked
at a car dealership, detailing cars, and his mother, who died in 1990, was a
janitor. White remains in touch with his
father and his seven remaining siblings (one had died sometime before 2010).
White began
committing crimes at the age of 11, including breaking and entering and
burglary. He obtained his high school
diploma while in the California Youth Authority (CYA).
White has
had three or four relationships which lasted longer than a year, but has never
been married.
3. Prior criminal record
White
denied having an “extensive criminal history” as an adult, though he conceded
that including his juvenile record might justify that description. The Board detailed his history as follows. “[A]s a juvenile, you got into the system at
age 12. Sent to CYA January 5th, 1967,
at age 16 for a little bit of auto theft, joyriding. Paroled from CYA on November 9th, 1967. You only did a year. Records are kind of unclear about that, but
you did do some more time at CYA. As an
adult, starting in ’68, a little bit of 10851 and theft with credit card,
detention only. 1968, San Jose Police
Department, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, criminal conspiracy,
burglary, dismissed. Redwood City PD,
the same, three weeks later. Possession
of a hypodermic needle, receiving stolen property, dismissed, insufficient
evidence. A year later in 1969, Redwood
City, burglary, dismissed. A few months
later in April, Redwood City, burglary and receiving stolen property,
disposition unknown. Two months later,
San Francisco PD, another burglary, failure to provide, no disposition. 1969, 6/16, two weeks later--no, two days
later, forgery, convicted. That was
fictitious checks. Went back to CYA on
8/17/1969. Paroled in 1970. 10/20/1971, burglary, convicted, San Jose,
two years probation, three months jail time.
You also got a receiving stolen property. 1/24/1972, . . . [r]eceiving stolen property,
unknown disposition. 1972 in July,
Redwood City, transporting and selling narcotics, criminal conspiracy,
dismissed in the furtherance of justice.
1973, Redwood City, 10851, which is auto theft, receiving stolen
property, convicted on vehicle theft, 24 months probation, six months jail
suspended. 6/7/74, 496, which is
receiving stolen property, carrying a concealed weapon on a person and carrying
a loaded firearm in a public place, felon in possession of a firearm.”
White
insisted that his adult criminal history, which included many dismissals, was a
consequence of being in a place where other people had “weapons and guns and
narcotics.” He believed he was treated
unfairly by being arrested simply for being in such places. However, he admitted being guilty of the
juvenile offenses, which resulted in him being sent to the CYA.
When asked
what he had learned from his criminal record, White said he “take[s] a [
“feel[s] bad about it.” He said it
“ruined” his life, and that he got involved in selling drugs because “[t]hat
was available at the time.”
4. Parole plans
If paroled,
White intended to live at the house of a friend, Louis Tate, in East Palo
Alto. Tate, who was 74 years old at the
time of the 2010 hearing, visits White in prison at least once a week. In a letter to the Board, Tate said he would
assist White in finding a job and White could live with him and his wife in
their three-bedroom house on his release.
At the time
of the parole hearing, White had no jobs lined up and had not looked for
work. He said he had obtained a dry
cleaning certificate while in prison.
The Board asked what he thought prospective employers would say after
looking at his criminal record. White
replied, “After I talk to them, they’re going to see I’m a changed man.” He pointed out that the “criteria you [i.e.,
the Board] have for finding me suitable and the criteria of getting me a job is
two different criterias.” [
In response
to the district attorney’s questions about employment, White admitted that he
never worked prior to being sent to prison.
He was arrested for selling drugs in 1972, but that charge was
dismissed. White denied that he and his
codefendants stole from drug dealers rather than dealing drugs themselves.
5. Institutional record
At the time
of his parole hearing, White’s classification score was zero, though because of
the murder conviction, his mandatory placement score was 28. He has never been in a street gang nor has he
ever been involved in prison gangs.
Since his
incarceration in 1974, White had received no CDC-128 write-ups and only two
CDC-115 write-ups, one of which was vacated.
The other CDC-115 he received in 2007 for mutual combat, and White
explained that he was defending himself after his cellmate kicked him.
White had
not obtained any college credits while incarcerated. He obtained a certificate in dry cleaning in
1987, but had completed no other vocational training.
White had
not participated in any self-help programs since his prior parole hearing,
because “They don’t have nothing I want to do.”
When asked what programs were available, White said, “All they have is
NA and AA. They don’t have nothing
else.” White said he had gone to NA for
18 years from 1986 to 2005. Even though
he did not have a drug problem, he took it “[b]ecause they asked me to.” He knew a few of the steps, such as step
four, which “has to do with taking a fearless inventory of yourself.” White said he takes such an inventory every
day. He took an inventory of himself
regarding the commitment offense, and said he learned it was motivated by
“Greed. When you do something for so
long, you become callous to it to where you just don’t even think about how it
affects other people’s lives.” White
also discussed steps eight, nine and 10.
White
completed the category X program in 1987, but told the Board he got “[n]othing”
from that program that would prepare him for parole.
6. 2009 psychological evaluation
In the
section entitled “Insight/Self Assessment,” the evaluator wrote, “White has
developed insight over the course of his incarceration.” White told the evaluator: “I am more wise, and more mature. I know some others who came after me and
before me are not doing so well. I try
to keep doing better, and doing something constructive every day.” In a subsequent section entitled “Remorse and
Insight into Life Crime,” the evaluator asked White about his feeling of
remorse, and White responded, “I used to talk about it and when I did, I said I
was sorry. I expressed it before. It is on paper in the file. I don’t talk about the crime. That is over with. I talk about it just for today.” When asked why the crime occurred, White
reiterated that he was “not going to talk about the crime. It is over with.” The evaluator noted that White “does not
convey remorse or empathy in his presentation.
He appears to have learned to live with what he has done, but his level
of repentance is based upon living in the present and not upon necessarily
processing what he has done in the past.”
According to the evaluator, this “leaves open to question to what degree
[White] is capable of experiencing the impact of his behavior upon others in
the past, or of accepting responsibility for past actions and also, issues
regarding not having to process circumstances, possibly based on an inflated
sense of self worth.”
The
evaluation indicated that White scored in the moderate range for psychopathy,
in the moderate/high risk category for violent recidivism and was in the
overall moderate/high range for committing violence in the free community. White told the Board he disagreed with the
evaluation on those points, and believed he should be classified in the low
range for all of them as he is “not a violent person.”
7. Denial of parole
The Board
denied parole to White for 15 years, finding that he posed an unreasonable risk
of danger if released from prison. The
Board cited the following factors in support of its denial: the commitment offense;
prior escalating criminal history and failure to profit from prior efforts to
correct his criminality; his lack of insight into the crime, as documented in
the 2009 psychological
evaluation which also found White presented a moderate to high risk of
violent recidivism; his unrealistic parole plans; and his failure to
participate in self-help since his last parole hearing.
The Board
recommended White remain discipline free, upgrade his vocational skills when
available, participate in available self-help programs and cooperate in
completing a clinical evaluation. The
Board cautioned White that he could not return to his next parole hearing “and
say ‘I’ve done my time. Let me out.’ ” The commissioner concluded by telling White,
“You gave the worst presentation I’ve had the privilege to sit before in a long
time. You were not prepared. You need to be--This stuff is about you. And I knew this stuff cover to cover because
that’s my job, and you come in here--It was pathetic, to be honest with
you.”
B. Petition for writ of habeas corpus
On December
29, 2010, White filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the
Board’s decision to deny him parole was not supported by the evidence. He also claimed the Board failed to
articulate a nexus between the commitment offense and the conclusion that White
posed a current risk to public safety.
In addition, White raised a constitutional challenge to the 2008
amendments that Marsy’s Law made to Penal Code section 3041.5,
those amendments violate the ex post facto clauses of the federal and
California Constitutions.
The
superior court issued an order to show cause and, on May 4, 2011, granted the
petition, faulting the Board for misapplying In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181 (Lawrence). The Board was
ordered to provide White a new hearing within 100 days, “comporting with due
process and the ‘nexus’ test of Lawrence,
rather than the ‘weight’ test of Dannenberg.[
constitutional challenge to Marsy’s Law.
Warden
appealed and subsequently petitioned for a writ of supersedeas staying the
superior court’s order. We granted the
petition.
II. Discussion
A. Standard of review
“[T]he judicial branch is authorized
to review the factual basis of a decision of the Board denying parole in order
to ensure that the decision comports with the requirements of due process of
law, but . . . in conducting such a review, the court may inquire only whether
some evidence in the record before the Board supports the decision to deny
parole, based upon the factors specified by statute
and regulation. If the decision’s
consideration of the specified factors is not supported by some evidence in the
record and thus is devoid of a factual basis, the court should grant the
prisoner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and should order the Board to
vacate its decision denying parole and thereafter to proceed in accordance with
due process of law.” (
658 (Rosenkrantz).)
Under the “some evidence” standard,
only a modicum of evidence is required to uphold a decision regarding
suitability for parole. (
Cal.4th at p. 677.) It is not for the
reviewing court to decide which evidence in the record is convincing. (Shaputis
II, supra, at p. 211.) Thus, the court may not independently resolve
conflicts in the evidence, determine the weight to be given the evidence, or
decide the manner in which the specified factors relevant to parole suitability
are to be considered and balanced because those are matters exclusively within
the discretion of the Board. (
1260; Rosenkrantz,
might determine that evidence in the record tending to establish suitability
for parole far outweighs evidence demonstrating unsuitability for parole.” (Rosenkrantz,
supra, at p. 677.)
While the standard of review is
deferential, it is not “toothless” and “ ‘must be sufficiently robust to reveal
and remedy any evident deprivation of constitutional rights’ [citation], it
must not operate so as to ‘impermissibly shift the ultimate discretionary
decision of parole suitability from the executive branch to the judicial
branch’ [citation].” (Shaputis II,
Where the superior court grants
habeas relief without an evidentiary hearing, we review the matter de
novo. (Rosenkrantz, supra, 29
Cal.4th at p. 677.)
B. Parole suitability and
unsuitability criteria
The general standard for a parole
unsuitability decision is that “a life prisoner shall be found unsuitable for
and denied parole if in the judgment of the [Board or the Governor] the
prisoner will pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released from
prison.” (Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 15, §
2402, subd. (a).)
title="">[6] A nonexclusive list of factors which
demonstrate an inmate’s unsuitability for parole includes: the offense was committed in an especially
heinous, atrocious, or cruel manner; the inmate possesses a previous record of
violence; the inmate has an unstable social history; the inmate has a lengthy
history of severe mental problems related to the offense; and the inmate has
engaged in serious misconduct while in prison.
(§ 2402, subd. (c).)
Relevant factors, also nonexclusive,
tending to demonstrate suitability for parole include the inmate’s lack of a
prior record of violent crime; the inmate’s stable social history; the inmate’s
expressions of remorse; the inmate is of an age that reduces the probability of
recidivism; the inmate has made realistic plans for release or has developed
marketable skills that can be put to use upon release; and the inmate has
engaged in institutional activities that indicate an enhanced ability to
function within the law upon release. (§
2402, subd. (d).)
The factors serve as generalized
guidelines and “ ‘the importance attached to any circumstance or combination of
circumstances in a particular case is left to the judgment of the [Board].’
” (Rosenkrantz,
supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 654.) Parole release decisions are essentially
discretionary; they “entail the Board’s attempt to predict by subjective analysis”
the inmate’s suitability for release on parole.
(Id. at p. 655.) Such a prediction requires analysis of
individualized factors on a case-by-case basis and the Board’s discretion in
that regard is “ ‘ “almost unlimited.” ’ ”
(Ibid.) However, as the California Supreme Court
later clarified, “It is not the existence or nonexistence of suitability or
unsuitability factors that forms the crux of the parole decision; the
significant circumstance is how those factors interrelate to support a
conclusion of current dangerousness to the public.” (Lawrence,
supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1212.) Accordingly, in exercising its discretion,
the Board “must consider all relevant statutory factors, including those that
relate to postconviction conduct and rehabilitation.” (Id.
at p. 1219.) That “requires more than
rote recitation of the relevant factors with no reasoning establishing a
rational nexus between those factors and the necessary basis for the ultimate
decision--the determination of current dangerousness.” (Id.
at p. 1210.)
C. There was sufficient
evidence to show White’s current
dangerousness
In denying parole, the Board relied
upon the following factors: the
commitment offense; White’s escalating criminal history and failure to profit
from prior efforts to correct his criminality; his lack of insight into the
crime, as documented in the 2009 psychological evaluation which also found
White presented a moderate to high risk of violent recidivism; his unrealistic
parole plans; and his failure to participate in self-help since his last parole
hearing.
The superior court’s order vacating
the Board’s decision was founded on its conclusion that the Board had ignored
the new “ ‘nexus’ test” set forth in Lawrence
and had instead utilized the “ ‘weight’ test of Dannenberg.” In reaching
this conclusion, however, the superior court focused almost exclusively on the
Board’s discussion of the commitment offense and failed to acknowledge the
myriad other factors listed by the Board which supported its conclusion that
White was unsuitable for parole. This
was error.
The “nexus” analysis described in
demonstrate why a particular inmate is or is not suitable for parole and
connect those factors to its ultimate conclusion that the inmate would present
a danger to public safety if released.
“It is not the existence or nonexistence of suitability or unsuitability
factors that forms the crux of the parole decision; the significant
circumstance is how those factors interrelate to support a conclusion of
current dangerousness to the public.” (
It is true the Board listed the
commitment offense as its “first consideration,” saying that it “weighed
heavily against suitability,”
name="_ftnref7" title="">[7]
but this reflects nothing more than the Board’s adherence to the order in which
the factors are set forth in the regulations.
Unsuitability factors are listed in section 2402, subdivision (c), and
the first unsuitability factor is the commitment offense. (§ 2402, subd. (c)(1).) Simply because the Board addressed the
factors in the same order in which they appear in the regulations does not mean
that it failed to properly consider White’s suitability for parole.
The Board was also concerned about
White’s criminal history, which was extensive and reflected his failure to take
advantage of prior opportunities to reform.
While this, like the commitment offense, is a circumstance which cannot
be changed, the Board is authorized to rely on this as a factor demonstrating
unsuitability for parole. (§ 2402, subd.
(c)(2).)
The Board cited White’s lack of
insight, which was reflected not only in his presentation to the Board but in
his 2009 psychological evaluation. In
that evaluation, Dr. Lehrer noted that White “does not convey remorse or
empathy in his presentation. He appears
to have learned to live with what he has done, but his level of repentance is
based upon living in the present and not necessarily processing what he has
done in the past.” The 2009
psychological evaluation also concluded that White presented a moderate/high
risk of violent recidivism and an overall moderate to high risk for committing
violence if released. This unfavorable
report further supports the Board’s conclusion that White is unsuitable for
parole.
With respect to White’s parole plan,
the Board was justifiably concerned that it was unrealistic. When asked where he intended to live upon
being paroled, White said he would move in with Louis Tate, a 74-year-old man,
and Tate’s wife in East Palo Alto, at an undisclosed address. White did not have a job offer and had not
made any inquiries about employment
following parole. In his 25 plus years
of incarceration, the only trade White had learned was dry cleaning, and his
certification in that vocation was issued in 1987. White admitted that he had never held a job
outside prison, instead supporting himself through criminal activities.
if released on parole, White responded, “Find a job.”
Finally, the Board’s conclusion that
White had failed to participate in self-help since his previous parole hearing
is supported by the record. White
admitted as much, stating, “They don’t have nothing I want to do.” [Sic.] White said the only programs available were
NA and AA. Though White participated in
NA for 18 years, up until 2005, he was apparently no longer interested in that
program. White’s failure to engage in
any self-help since his prior parole hearing, simply because there were no
programs he “want[ed] to do,” suggests he does not take seriously the Board’s
recommendations about how to improve his chances of being paroled.
Based on this record, there is
sufficient evidence to support the Board’s conclusion that White is presently
dangerous and unsuitable for parole at this time.
The May 4, 2011 order granting
White’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is reversed. The matter is remanded to the superior court
with directions to vacate that order and enter a new order denying White’s
petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Premo,
Acting P.J.
WE CONCUR:
Elia, J.
Mihara, J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1]
In the April 2010 Life Prisoner Evaluation report, White said he ‘went by this
mother’s last name, Moore, while growing up.”
In discussing the commitment offense, the Board noted that “During the autopsy
it was discovered that the victim was sexually assaulted, sodomized and
raped.” The autopsy was not part of the
original clerk’s transcript on appeal.
We granted White’s motion to augment the clerk’s transcript to include
the victim’s autopsy report and the medical examiner-coroner investigator’s
report.
