In re Wright
Filed 1/27/09 In re Wright CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
In re LANCE ERIC WRIGHT, on Habeas Corpus. | A119505 (Sonoma County Super. Ct. Nos. SCR13230, SCR13396) |
In 1985, petitioner Lance Eric Wright began serving a 17-year, four-month to life sentence. The controlling offense was second degree murder, enhanced for use of a deadly weapon (knife). As well, Wright was convicted and sentenced for escape from county jail.
The Board of Parole Hearings (Board) has denied Wright parole six times. In its January 2006 denial, the Board found that the commitment offense was carried out in an especially cruel and callous manner, a manner that was dispassionate and calculated and demonstrated exceptionally callous disregard for human suffering; it characterized the motive for the crime as very trivial. Further, Wright had a juvenile record; his prior criminality demonstrated an escalating pattern of criminal conduct; he had a history of unstable relationships; and prior attempts to correct his criminality, including juvenile and adult probation, had failed.
The Board commended Wrights institutional behavior, recognizing that Wright obtained a general education degree, an AA degree, had worked consistently toward a goal of counseling and obtaining advanced degrees, and received number one work ratings while in prison. Wright learned to carry [his] message to help others and to grow and to reach out and assist others in changing their lifestyle which will be valuable to future generations. Wrights misconduct in prison had been minimal and he had been discipline free for the past 12 years.
The Board had difficulty with Wrights parole plansspecifically, it indicated he needed more realistic residential and employment plans, and more realistic marketable skills. The Board denied parole, finding Wright would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society or a threat to public safety if released from prison.
Wright successfully petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. The trial court concluded that the Boards decision finding Wright unsuitable for parole was not supported by some evidence, and ordered the Board to conduct a new hearing within 60 days that complied with the due process principles announced in its decision. Acting Warden Richard Subia appealed, and we granted his petition for writ of supersedeas, thereby staying the trial courts decision.
Meanwhile, we take judicial notice that the Board conducted a regularly scheduled parole consideration hearing on January 22, 2008, this time finding that Wright was suitable for parole. On June 20, 2008, the Governor reversed the Boards decision. Again, Wright petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in the trial court (No. SCR13230), this time asserting that the Governor abused his discretion and violated Wrights due process rights in denying parole in contravention of clearly established state and federal law. That petition is making its way through the trial court process and the final outcome is unknown. In light of these subsequent proceedings, we dismiss the instant appeal as moot.
DISCUSSION
Ordinarily, we do not review questions that have become moot. Courts will deem a criminal case moot only where it is shown that there is no possibility that any collateral legal consequences will be imposed on the basis of the challenged decision. (Sibron v. New York (1968) 392 U.S. 40, 57; People v. Lindsey (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 742, 744.) Thus, for example, if pursuing a successful appeal will allow the defendant to clear his or her name notwithstanding that the defendant has served his or her term of imprisonment, the appeal is not moot. (People v. Lindsey, supra, at p. 744.)
Here, there are no collateral legal consequences that could be abated by virtue of allowing respondents appeal to proceed. Whether we would affirm or reverse the trial courts order granting Wrights petition for writ of habeas corpus, subsequent eventsnamely the 2008 Board hearingwould render our effort and resulting decision an idle act. The trial court found the Boards decision lacking some evidence and ordered a new hearing, but a new hearing has already occurred, without the interpretive directions from the trial court that respondent criticizes in this appeal. This time the Board granted parole. Whether or not the Board correctly denied parole in 2006 does not pose any collateral consequence to Wright because in 2008 it did grant parole. Moreover, if we were to rule that Wrights petition should have been denied, such a ruling would have no impact on the regularly scheduled 2008 hearing that did occur. Whatever we would decree, the subsequent Board decision granting parole and the Governors denial of that order would supersede our decision. Wright suffers no prejudice by aborting the appeal; neither does respondent. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
_________________________
Reardon, Acting P.J.
We concur:
_________________________
Sepulveda, J.
_________________________
Rivera, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.
