In re Ledbetter 12/22/09 CA3

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2010 » In re Ledbetter 12/22/09 CA3

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: C060498

Case Date: 03/25/2010

Preview:Filed 12/22/09

In re Ledbetter CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte) ----

IN RE RANDY LEDBETTER ON HABEAS CORPUS

C060498 (Super. Ct. No. 103365)

In 1989, when defendant Randy Ledbetter was 16 years old, a jury convicted him of attempted first degree murder, robbery, and first degree burglary. The jury also found, as to the

attempted murder, that defendant inflicted great bodily injury on the victim. He was sentenced to a term of life with

possibility of parole for the attempted murder plus a determinate term of five years, four months for the robbery and burglary. On November 14, 2007, at defendants sixth hearing before the Board of Parole Hearings (Board), the Board found defendant unsuitable for parole because he posed an unreasonable risk of danger to the public if released. The reasons cited by the

Board were defendants unstable social history, his questionable sincerity in claiming that he was now taking full responsibility for the crime, and the aggravated circumstances of the attempted murder.

1

On August 5, 2008, defendant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Butte County Superior Court seeking reversal of the Boards ruling. On November 18, the trial court

(Judge Robert A. Glusman) granted the petition, finding that no evidence supported the Boards finding that defendant was currently dangerous. The court directed the Board to set a On

parole date and to release the defendant forthwith.

November 26, the People filed a notice of appeal from, and a request for a stay of, the trial courts orders. On December 1,

we granted the stay pending further order by this court. The People contend that reversal of the trial courts order is required because the record contains "some evidence" supporting the Boards finding of unsuitability for parole, and that even if there was no such evidence, the remedy was remand for further consideration rather than ordering the Board to set a parole date and to immediately release defendant. We shall

affirm the trial courts granting of the petition, but shall remand the matter to the Board with directions. THE BOARDS DUTIES For defendants sentenced to an indeterminate term with the possibility of parole, as is the case here, the Board is required to set a parole release date unless the Board determines that the defendant is unsuitable for parole because he is an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released. (Pen. Code,

Download In re Ledbetter 12/22/09 CA3.pdf