In re Mathewson 2/23/10 CA4/1

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2010 » In re Mathewson 2/23/10 CA4/1

State: California

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

Docket No: D055007

Case Date: 04/22/2010

Preview:Filed 2/23/10 In re Mathewson CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPAL - FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re RODERICK MATHEWSON on Habeas Corpus.

D055007 (San Diego County Super. Ct. No. CR86404)

Petition for writ of habeas corpus, Francis Devaney, Judge. Relief granted.

In 1987 a jury convicted Roderick Mathewson of second degree murder with the personal use of a firearm and the trial court sentenced him to prison for 17 years to life. Mathewson, now 41 years old, has remained in prison for the past 21 years and for the last 12 years has been an exemplary inmate. He became eligible for parole in 1998. After three unsuccessful parole hearings, the Board of Parole Hearings (the Board) again found him unsuitable for parole at his 2008 suitability hearing. After the trial court denied a request for habeas relief, Mathewson filed the present petition for writ of habeas corpus. Mathewson essentially asserts the Board's conclusion violates his due process to parole because it is without evidentiary support; it was improperly based primarily upon

the circumstances of his commitment offense and there is no evidence he poses a current risk of danger to public safety. We conclude the record does not contain "some evidence" to support the Board's ultimate conclusion that Mathewson was unsuitable for parole because he currently posed an unreasonable risk to public safety. Accordingly, we grant Mathewson habeas relief. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. The Commitment Offense The pertinent facts of Mathewson's offense are derived from our earlier appellate decision in People v. Mathewson (May 22, 1989, D007115 [nonpub. opn.]). "Nineteen-year-old Mathewson and eighteen-year-old Cyrus Lam, the victim, were friends and former fellow employees of the Wherehouse entertainment store chain in Thousand Oaks, California, where they met in the summer of 1986. Mathewson was an assistant manager of one store and Lam was a clerk at another until they both resigned. Lam's reason for resigning was that he began to attend college at the University of California, San Diego, beginning in August or September 1986. He took with him the 1984 black Corvette he had received from his parents for his high school graduation. On his part, Mathewson resigned in January 1987 because he knew he was under suspicion of theft of Wherehouse store property and funds. He estimated the value of the stolen videotapes, compact disks, and tapes at $7,000 or $8,000, and testified he stole at times $200-$300 cash daily. Shortly before Mathewson resigned, Lam joined him in making some of these merchandise thefts.

2

"In March 1986 Mathewson stole a .45 handgun from his stepfather. It was a vintage model with distinctive ammunition. . . . "[

Download In re Mathewson 2/23/10 CA4/1.pdf