In re Sasser 11/1/10 CA2/7

State: California

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

Docket No: B224785

Case Date: 02/03/2011

Preview:Filed 11/1/10 In re Sasser CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re ALBERT SASSER

B224785 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BH006495)

on Habeas Corpus.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Peter Paul Espinoza, Judge. Reversed with directions. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Anya M. Binsacca and Amanda Lloyd, Deputy Attorneys General, for Appellant. James M. Crawford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Respondent. _____________________

In 1983, Albert Sasser was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to an indeterminate term of 15 years to life in prison (Sasser was also convicted of conspiracy to commit extortion, attempted extortion, and assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury). On February 25, 2009, the Board of Parole Hearings (the Board) found Sasser suitable and granted parole. The Governor reversed the Board's decision. In July 2009, the superior court granted Sasser's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, finding the Governor's reversal was not supported by some evidence that Sasser currently posed an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released (see In re Rosenkrantz (2002) 29 Cal.4th 616, 652), and ordered Sasser be released in accord with the parole date calculated by the Board. The Attorney General appealed from that order, contending the Governor's decision was supported by some evidence in the record. Subsequently, this court learned that on February 3, 2010, the Board found Sasser was unsuitable for parole and then asked the parties to address the effect of that decision.1 Although the Attorney General asserted the 2010 Board decision had no effect on his appeal as it did not affect the merits of Governor's prior decision, Sasser argued this appeal was moot as a court may only decide justifiable controversies. (See Golden Gate Bridge etc. Dist. v. Felt (1931) 214 Cal. 308, 316; 3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Actions,

Download In re Sasser 11/1/10 CA2/7.pdf