California Court of Appeal Jun 25, 2014 No. D064772Unpublished
Filed 6/25/14 In re Rodriguez CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re JOSE RODRIGUEZ D064772
on
Habeas Corpus. (San Diego County Super. Ct. No. CR87615)
Petition for writ of habeas corpus following a decision by the Board of Parole
Hearings to deny parole. Relief denied.
Michael Satris, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioner.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Jennifer A. Neill, Senior Assistant Attorney
General, Phillip Lindsay and Rachael A. Campbell, Deputy Attorneys General, for
Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
A jury convicted Jose Rodriguez of second degree murder and found true an
allegation he personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon when committing the
offense. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 12022, subd. (b))1 The court sentenced him to an
indeterminate term of 16 years to life in prison. He first became eligible for parole in
October 1997.
At a parole consideration hearing in 2013, the Board of Parole Hearings (Board)
found Rodriguez unsuitable for parole because he continued to pose a threat to public
safety. The Board also found it was not reasonably probable he would be suitable for
parole for another five years. He petitioned this court for habeas relief, contending there
was insufficient evidence to support either finding. He additionally contends the five-
year parole denial period constitutes an ex post facto law as applied to him.
We conclude the record contains some evidence to support the Board's findings.
We further conclude Rodriguez's ex post facto law contention lacks merit and,
consequently, deny habeas relief.
BACKGROUND2
Commitment Offense
The Board based its decision on the factual background contained in our decision
in People v. Rodriguez (Mar. 20, 1991, D008556) [nonpub. opn.]. In our decision, we
summarized the factual background as follows:
1 Further statutory references are also to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
2 At Rodriguez's request, we take judicial notice of the records and files in In re Rodriguez (D057997). (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 459.)
2
"Rodriguez, an undocumented alien, was hired by Richard Field, Jr. (Richard).
Later, Richard's father, Richard Field, Sr. (Field), allowed Rodriguez to live in his home,
where he was treated like his own son and referred to Field as 'father.'
"Approximately two years after he began living at the Fields' residence, Rodriguez
became sexually involved with Field's wife, Rebecca. In January 1987, Field became
suspicious and accused his wife. When she denied his accusations, he confronted
Rodriguez at gun point, who also denied any impropriety. Later, Field apologized to
Rodriguez. Rebecca was so shaken by the incident; however, she sought professional
counseling. She told the psychologist Field kept several guns in the house. Concerned
for Rebecca and Rodriguez's safety, the psychologist called the police who confiscated
the guns, but returned them before the incident in which Field was killed.
"On February 1, Field visited a neighbor, Georgia Bird, between 5:30 and 6 p.m.
appearing 'absolutely normal. Jovial, relaxed. . . . ' That same evening, at approximately
10 p.m., Rodriguez came to Bird's door, distraught and clutching his side. Rodriguez
claimed two men had robbed the Fields then shot and killed Field. When the first officer
arrived, he found Rodriguez running in front of the Fields' home screaming hysterically.
After calming down, Rodriguez related the same story he had told Bird.
"The police found Field dead on the floor with a large pool of blood surrounding
his head. Death was caused by multiple skull fractures with intracranial hemorrhage
inflicted by a blunt instrument.
"From the time the police first entered the house, they suspected Rodriguez was
lying. First, the blood on the floor was dry when the first officer entered the house,
3
indicating some time had elapsed between Field's death and their arrival. Further, a green
chair was covered with blood and there was blood splattered on the ceiling above the
chair, yet the body was on the floor several feet from the chair.
"While the house did appear to have been ransacked, it was not typical of
residential burglaries. For instance, none of Rebecca's fragile belongings were damaged
or displaced and only money was taken. Police detectives noted other inconsistencies in
Rodriguez's initial burglary story. For example, the robbers killed Field, but only injured
Rodriguez. Further, although the robbers allegedly shot Rodriguez in his side, no bullet
hole was found in his shirt and no blood was found in the room in which Rodriguez
claimed he was shot. Finally, the purported robbers' gun contained only Rodriguez's
fingerprints." (People v. Rodriguez, supra, D008556.)
After Rodriguez received medical treatment for his wound, police detectives
conducted a lengthy interview with him, which included two polygraph examinations.
"[W]hen Rodriguez was confronted with the results of the final polygraph test, he
admitted killing Field. He stated Field, armed with a gun, had again confronted him
about his sexual relationship with Rebecca. Fearing for his life, Rodriguez ran out of the
house with Field in pursuit. Field told Rodriguez to stop because he did not want to
disturb their neighbors. Rodriguez stopped. Both men went to the side of the house to
continue their discussion. Suddenly, Rodriguez knocked the gun from Field's hand,
grabbed both the gun and a pipe from the flowerbed, and ran into the house followed by
Field. As he entered the house, Rodriguez threw the gun on the floor and said, 'If you
want to kill me go ahead.' As Field reached for the gun, Rodriguez hit him twice on the
4
head with the pipe because he feared Field was going to shoot him. The victim's body
fell into the green chair and slid onto the floor.
"Rodriguez then went to a local bar and paid a friend, Juan Rios, $500 to ransack
the house to make it appear as if someone had robbed the place and killed Field in the
process. He then shot himself." (People v. Rodriguez, supra, D008556.)
The Board also relied on information contained in the probation officer's report.
In particular, the Board relied on a statement from Rodriguez's admitted accomplice,
Victor Arzate,3 who was found in Mexico with items taken from the Fields' home. "In
his statement, Arzate said that he had known [Rodriguez] since childhood . . . .
[Rodriguez], he said, had fallen in love with his boss's wife and after drinking at a local
bar, the two of them went to the home of the boss. While en route, Rodriguez asked
Arzate to help him kill his boss. Rodriguez would be the actual person who committed
the murder and Arzate was going to make it appear that the homicide was the result of a
robbery. Arzate was supposed to earn $500 for his part. They then went to the residence
and after spying on [Field] through the window, Rodriguez took a metal bar out of the car
and the two of them entered the home. Without making any noise, Rodriguez struck
[Field] across the head. Arzate then picked up [the items he was found with] and
ransacked the home. While doing this, Rodriguez told him that the boss was still alive
and ordered Arzate to strangle him by the neck until he was dead. Arzate obeyed and he
grabbed [Field] by the neck with both hands for approximately five minutes . . . ."
3 It is not clear from the record whether Arzate and Rios are the same person.
5
Arzate did not testify at Rodriguez's trial. The record does not state why;
however, there is some indication Arzate was involved in his own criminal proceedings
in Mexico at the time. According to the probation officer's report, a few months before
Rodriguez's sentencing, Arzate was sentenced to serve 20 years in the Baja California
State Penitentiary for his involvement in the crime.
Rodriguez's Version of Events After His Conviction and Before the 2013 Parole Hearing
After his conviction, Rodriguez submitted a statement to the probation department
detailing his version of events. Specifically, he stated Field confronted him with
evidence of the affair, threatened to kill him, and grabbed a gun. He ran outside, Field
followed, the two struggled and he took the gun from Field. Field started to hit him. He
grabbed a metal stake from the ground and told Field to stay away. Field persuaded him
to go back inside the home. Once inside, Field asked him to return the gun and called
him "a woman." He cried and begged Field to be allowed to leave, but Field refused to
let him go. Field approached him and he pushed Field back into a chair. He put the gun
down in front of Field and, when Field tried to grab it, he hit Field with the metal stake.
He then shot himself, intending to kill himself. After the first shot, however, he felt
severe pain and was too afraid to shoot himself again.
Rodriguez provided a similar version of events to a forensic psychologist who
prepared a comprehensive risk assessment for the 2013 parole hearing. One key
difference between the two versions is the latter version does not characterize Rodriguez's
self-inflicted gunshot wound as a suicide attempt. In addition, Rodriguez told the
6
forensic psychologist, when Field reached for the gun on the floor, Rodriguez lost control
of himself and repeatedly hit Field.
Before the 2013 parole hearing, Rodriguez prepared a package of documents
entitled, "Parole Plans and Supporting Documents." (Some capitalization omitted.)
Included in the package was an "Insight Stat[e]ment," in which Rodriguez discussed his
relationship with Field, his relationship with Field's wife, the commitment offense, and
his remorse for it. In the statement, Rodriguez's version of events is substantially similar
to the one he provided the forensic psychologist who prepared the comprehensive risk
assessment for the 2013 parole hearing. However, Rodriguez added a few details,
including that he and Field's wife were attracted to one another; he was conflicted
between his feelings for Field's wife and Field, whom he regarded as a father figure; and
he decided he had to end the affair, but he did not have the strength, maturity, bravery,
confidence or education to act on his decision.
Rodriguez's Version of Events at the 2013 Parole Hearing
At the 2013 parole hearing, Rodriguez's version of events differed from his prior
versions in important respects. He claimed for the first time Field's wife coerced him into
starting the affair by threatening to report him to immigration officials if he did not.
When he periodically returned to Mexico, she continually called him and requested he
come back to the United States. He said he felt trapped and did not know how to handle
7
the situation.4 He also said he "was living under a lot of guilt, because I was betraying
[Field], I was betraying the whole family, I was betraying my own wife, and I was
betraying my own cultural princip[le]s."
In addition, while Rodriguez described the same general sequence of events
leading up to the killing, he admitted for the first time he did not kill Field in self-
defense. Instead, he said he formed the intent to kill Field when Field accused him of not
being a man. He became angry, lost control of himself, and hit Field on the head several
times. Afterwards, he went outside and got Arzate, who was waiting in Rodriguez's car
in front of the Fields' home. Since Field was still alive then, he had Arzate strangle Field.
He then had Arzate ransack and take some things from the Fields' home. He gave Arzate
his car keys and falsely told Arzate he was going to kill himself. After Arzate left,
Rodriguez cut the telephone lines and burned his clothes, which had Field's blood on
them. He subsequently shot himself, ran to a neighbor's house, and told her robbers had
come to the Fields' home.
Rodriguez denied he and Arzate planned to kill Field in advance. Rather, he said
they had met up in Escondido earlier in the day. When it was time for him to return to
the Fields' home in National City, Arzate did not want him to leave. So, he drove Arzate
from Escondido to a bar in National City, where they each had a drink and Arzate asked
Rodriguez for assistance in finding a job. Afterwards, they stopped by the Fields' home
4 It appears the Board understood him to mean by "trapped" that he felt he had no alternative but to continue with the affair. In his insight statement, he stated he "felt trapped between divided loyalties" to Field and Field's wife.
8
so Rodriguez could make himself lunch before driving Arzate back to Escondido. He
said he could not have waited to make himself lunch until after he returned from taking
Arzate back to Escondido because it would have been too late to make noise in the
kitchen. He bought Arzate two beers to drink while Arzate waited in the car.
The Board questioned why he would drive Arzate 50 miles for a couple of drinks
and then head back. He said he did it because Arzate was family, they had not seen each
other in a long time and Arzate wanted to go with him.
The Board additionally questioned why he did not leave two weeks before the
killing when Field first confronted him about the affair and threatened to kill all three of
them. He said he made a poor decision. He suggested to Field's wife the possibility of
his leaving, but she started crying and told him he was not a man if he left her to deal
with the situation herself. Field also told him not to leave until they found a place for
him.
The Board further questioned how he could have felt trapped when he had a home
and family in Mexico, to which he traveled back and forth. He said he felt trapped
because Field's wife "was telling me, 'Come back. Come back.' And to a certain point,
even with the distance, she was still trying to control me."
Pre-Conviction History, Post-Conviction History, and Parole Plans
Rodriguez was born into a large family in rural Mexico. He and his wife married
when they were 18 and have three children together.
When Rodriguez came to the United States, he had limited education and no
English language skills. Despite apparent learning difficulties, he is now conversant in
9
English and has completed vocational training in carpentry, roofing, plumbing, and
masonry. He has also completed several automotive maintenance courses.
While in prison, his conduct has largely been exemplary. He has numerous
laudatory chronos5 and has been discipline free since 2000. He has actively participated
in self-help programs for many years, including substance abuse and anger management
programs. In addition, he is a devout Christian and spends much of his free time
participating in Christian ministries.
His wife, children, and other family members have supported him throughout his
incarceration and plan to continue doing so. When released, he expects to be deported to
Mexico, where he will farm land with his brothers.
Psychological Evaluations
Approximately five months before the 2013 parole hearing, a forensic
psychologist prepared a comprehensive risk assessment. The assessment indicated
Rodriguez "made a very good impression," did not have a mental health diagnosis, and
was not exhibiting "active signs/symptoms of a major mental illness." The assessment
also indicated he posed a low risk for violence in the free community assuming he
continued to abstain from substance abuse. Regarding his expressions of remorse and
insight into the causative factors of his crime, the assessment indicated his insight was
"generally fair," although the assessment additionally noted "[h]e appeared to present
5 "A 'chrono' is an institutional documentation of information about inmates and inmate behavior." (In re Stoneroad (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 596, 606, fn. 4.)
10
himself in a somewhat defensive manner" and "made some attempt to portray himself in
an overly favorable manner." The assessment further indicated his "planning, execution,
and inept attempts to deny responsibility" for the crime were "symptomatic of impaired
adaptive abilities." Consequently, the report recommended he continue participating in
formal education and enlist the aid of "a mentor, tutor, sponsor, minister, family member,
or trustworthy friend" to improve his insight. Finally, the assessment indicated he should
explore unresolved anger issues related to his view of Field as a father figure.
Objections to Parole by District Attorney and Victim's Family6
The San Diego County District Attorney's office objected to Rodriguez's parole,
arguing he was unsuitable for parole because "he has not shown enough insight at this
point to be a non-danger to the community." To support its position, the district
attorney's office argued that, notwithstanding Rodriguez's admission he intended to kill
Field, aspects of his version of events were inconsistent with the physical evidence and
unbelievable, he continued to portray himself in the best light and as acting defensively,
and he had not had an opportunity to explore self-indentified anger and resentment issues.
Field's daughter, son-in-law, and grandchildren appeared at the hearing and also
objected to Rodriguez's parole. Among the bases for Field's daughter's objection were
6 The district attorney's and the family's opinions are not evidence of unsuitability for parole, but may influence the weight the Board gives to the evidence. (In re Vicks (2013) 56 Cal.4th 274, 308-309 (Vicks); In re Dannenberg (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 237, 255, fn. 5; In re Weider (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 570, 590.)
11
the inconsistencies in Rodriguez's versions of events and his portrayal of himself as a
victim by deflecting blame onto Field's wife.
Board's Decision
After considering the preceding information, as well as the information presented
in prior parole hearings, the Board determined Rodriguez posed an unreasonable risk of
danger and a threat to public safety and was, therefore, unsuitable for parole. The Board
noted there were many circumstances in the record reflecting parole suitability, including
Rodriguez's lack of a significant history of violent crime apart from the commitment
offense, his age, his marketable skills and reasonable parole plans, and his positive
programming while incarcerated. Nonetheless, the Board concluded these circumstances
were outweighed by the circumstances tending to show unsuitability, including the
circumstances of the commitment offense, his childhood difficulties, his lack of
credibility, his lack of adequate remorse, his failure to accept full responsibility for and
his minimization of his involvement in the commitment offense by deflecting some
blame to Field and Field's wife, and his lack of insight into the underlying causes of the
commitment offense. The Board observed, "Since he lacks insight and is still a danger,
he cannot develop the requisite skills, the coping mechanisms, that would assure [the
Board] that he would not re-offend and therefore would not be dangerous." Finally, the
Board agreed with the observation in the comprehensive risk assessment that Rodriguez
required further work on his anger issues and, consequently, determined the appropriate
length of time to deny parole was five years.
12
DISCUSSION
I
Sufficiency of Evidence to Deny Parole
A
The decision whether to grant parole is an inherently subjective determination. (In
re Rosenkrantz (2002) 29 Cal.4th 616, 655 (Rosenkrantz).) The Board must consider
Circumstances tending to show suitability for parole include that the inmate: (1)
lacks a juvenile history of violent or potentially violent behavior; (2) has a history of
reasonably stable social relationships; (3) has demonstrated remorse and an
understanding of the nature and magnitude of the offense; (4) lacks a significant history
of violent crime; (5) has a reduced recidivism risk because of age; (6) has realistic parole
plans; and (7) has participated in institutional activities demonstrating an enhanced ability
to function if paroled. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2402, subd. (d).) Conversely,
circumstances tending to show unsuitability for parole include that the inmate: (1)
committed the offense in a particularly heinous, atrocious, or cruel manner; (2) possesses
a previous record of violence; (3) has an unstable social history; (4) has previously
13
sexually assaulted another individual in a sadistic manner; (5) has a lengthy history of
severe mental problems related to the offense; and (6) has engaged in serious misconduct
while in prison. (Id., § 2402, subd. (c).)
These circumstances provide general guidelines. The importance attached to any
circumstance or combination of circumstances in a given case is left to the Board's sound
judgment. (Rosenkrantz, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 654.) "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." (In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th
1181, 1212 (Lawrence).) Consequently, a factor that might not by itself establish an
inmate's unsuitability for parole may still contribute to a finding of unsuitability. (Cal.
Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2402, subd. (b).)
Our power to review the Board's decision is limited. As long as the Board's
decision reflects due consideration of the specified factors as applied to the individual
inmate in accordance with applicable legal standards, our review is restricted to
ascertaining whether there is some evidence in the record to support the Board's decision
the inmate poses a current threat to public safety. (Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th at
p. 1212; Rosenkrantz, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 677.) " 'Some evidence' " in this context
means a modicum of evidence. (In re Shaputis (2011) 53 Cal.4th 192, 210 (Shaputis II).)
Here, the Board based its decision partially on the circumstances of the
commitment offense, which the Board found was committed "in an especially gruesome,
heinous, and brutal manner." The circumstances of the commitment offense are an
14
appropriate consideration in determining parole suitability. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15,
§ 2402, subd. (c)(1).) Among the signs of an especially heinous commitment offense are:
"[t]he victim was abused, defiled or mutilated during or after the offense"; "[t]he offense
was carried out in a manner which demonstrates an exceptionally callous disregard for
human suffering"; and "[t]he motive for the crime is inexplicable or very trivial in
relation to the offense." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2402, subd. (c)(1)(C)-(E).) Each of
these signs is present in this case. We, therefore, have no difficulty concluding there is at
least a modicum of evidence to support the Board's characterization of the circumstances
of the commitment offense. Nonetheless, as the Board recognized, the circumstances of
the commitment offense are not sufficient to justify a decision to deny parole unless the
circumstances, when considered in light of the other facts in the record, demonstrate the
inmate is currently dangerous. (In re Shaputis (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1241, 1254-1255
(Shaputis I.))
The Board additionally based its decision on concerns about the level of
Rodriguez's acceptance of responsibility and insight into what caused him to kill Field.
An inmate's acceptance of responsibility and development of insight are also appropriate
considerations in determining parole suitability. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2402, subd.
(d)(3); Shaputis I, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1246.) Moreover, an inmate's lack of insight
into and understanding of the behavior underlying the commitment offense can support a
conclusion the inmate is currently dangerous. (Shaputis I, at p. 1260.) Indeed, the
California Supreme Court has specifically recognized "the presence or absence of insight
is a significant factor in determining whether there is a 'rational nexus' between the
15
inmate's dangerous past behavior and the threat the inmate currently poses to public
safety." (Shaputis II, supra, 53 Cal.4th at pp. 218.)
Expressions of remorse and demonstration of insight will vary from inmate to
inmate and there are no special words for an inmate to articulate in order to communicate
he or she has committed to ending a previous pattern of violent or antisocial behavior.
(Shaputis I, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1260, fn. 18.) While Rodriguez acknowledged
responsibility and articulated remorse for his crime, his version of events has continued to
evolve over time, which, in the Board's view undermined his general credibility. It also
suggested he was still grappling with what happened and why. The comprehensive risk
assessment supported the Board's view. The assessment described his insight as
"generally fair," which connotes both that he possesses some insight and that there are
additional gains for him to make. The assessment also stated he tended to portray himself
in an overly favorable and defensive manner, he needed to enlist the aid of a trusted third
party to help him improve his insight, and he needed to explore unresolved anger issues.
Consistent with the assessment's characterization of his portrayal of himself,
Rodriguez attempted to shift some blame to Field's wife at the parole hearing by claiming
she coerced him into starting their affair and badgered him into continuing it despite his
better judgment. He also attempted to minimize his actions by claiming Field goaded
him into a homicidal rage by insulting his masculinity. Given these circumstances, we
conclude there is at least a modicum of evidence to support the Board's conclusion
Rodriguez was currently dangerous because he had not accepted full responsibility and
did not possess adequate insight into why he murdered Field.
16
B
Rodriguez contends the Board's reasons for denying him parole amount to an
unlawful insistence he admit he is guilty of premeditated murder as a condition of
receiving a parole date. We disagree.
"The Board of Prison Terms shall not require, when setting parole dates, an
admission of guilt to any crime for which an inmate was committed." (§ 5011, subd. (b).)
However, when, as here, an inmate provides the Board with the inmate's version of
events, neither section 5011, subdivision (b), nor title 15, section 2236 of the California
Code of Regulations preclude the Board from considering the plausibility of the inmate's
version of events to the extent it bears on the inmate's parole suitability. To the contrary,
the Board is required to consider "[a]ll relevant, reliable information available" when
determining an inmate's parole suitability. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2402, subd. (b).)
Thus, an inmate with a plausible account, who has accepted responsibility for his
or her professed actions, expressed remorse, effectively participated in rehabilitative
programs, and been found by a psychologist to present a low recidivism risk may be
suitable for parole notwithstanding the inmate's claim of innocence or reduced
culpability. (See, e.g., In re Pugh (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 260, 269; In re Jackson (2011)
193 Cal.App.4th 1376, 1389-1391; In re Palermo (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1110-
1112, disapproved on another ground in In re Prather (2010) 50 Cal.4th 238, 252–253.)
Conversely, an inmate with an implausible account, but an otherwise exemplary prison
record, may be unsuitable for parole if the implausibility of the inmate's account indicates
the inmate does not appreciate the magnitude of the commitment offense or its
17
contributing causes and there is psychological evidence the inmate's character has not
appreciably changed since the commitment offense. (See, e.g., In re Shaputis I, supra, 44
Cal.4th at p. 1260; In re McClendon (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 315, 321-322.) As one
appellate court explained, "where the inmate's version of events is contrary to the facts
established at trial and is inherently improbable, this reflects on the inmate's credibility,
and indicates a refusal to admit the truth to himself and to others. This establishes a
nexus to current dangerousness because it indicates the inmate is hiding the truth and has
not been rehabilitated sufficiently to be safe in society." (In re Pugh, supra, 205
Cal.App.4th at p. 273.)
In this case, although Rodriguez admitted intentionally killing Field, numerous
aspects of his version of events are doubtful. For instance, a few weeks before the
murder, Field purportedly confronted him with a gun and threatened to kill him. Yet, he
did not leave the Fields' home at that time because Field and Field's wife asked him to
stay. Then, on the day of the murder, Field again confronted Rodriguez with a gun,
which Rodriguez managed to get away from him. However, instead of running to his
waiting friend and waiting car, he went inside the house with Field and purposely placed
the gun within Field's reach. While he stated he did this to prompt Field to bend over so
he could hit Field on the head, it is unclear why such a ploy was necessary. Moreover, it
makes little sense for a person admittedly intent on killing to give his adversary access to
a superior weapon.
Rodriguez's explanation for how Arzate came to be at the Fields' home is dubious
as well. As the Board pointed out, it is improbable Rodriguez picked up Arzate and
18
embarked on a 100-mile roundtrip excursion just so they could have a few drinks together
at a bar. There were undoubtedly other bars closer to Arzate's residence where two old
friends could catch up with one another. Also troubling, Rodriguez stated at least part of
Field's armed confrontation with Rodriguez occurred outside where Arzate was
purportedly waiting. Yet, Arzate did not intervene until Rodriguez enlisted his aid after
the murder.
The doubtfulness of aspects of Rodriguez's account coupled with his statements
deflecting blame and minimizing his actions tend to show Rodriguez does not fully
appreciate the magnitude of the commitment offense or its contributing causes. As
discussed above, the comprehensive risk assessment supports this view. Accordingly, we
conclude the Board's skepticism of Rodriguez's account did not violate section 5011,
subdivision (b).
C
In addition to the circumstances of the commitment offense and concerns about
Rodriguez's responsibility and insight, the Board also based its decision on what it
characterized as an unstable social history. This history included the death of his father
when he was one, indications of physical abuse by his mother, and his need to leave
school at an early age to work and support his family. Rodriguez contends the Board
acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying parole on this basis because the evidence
does not support a finding his mother abused him, a Board policy precludes it from using
an inmate's victimization experiences as an unsuitability factor, and Rodriguez's
childhood experiences tended to show stability rather than the converse.
19
Assuming, without deciding, the Board considered Rodriguez's childhood
experiences in an impermissible manner, the error does not require reversal of the Board's
decision. " 'We may uphold the parole authority's decision, despite a flaw in its findings,
if the authority has made clear it would have reached the same decision even absent the
error. [Citation.]' [Citation.] As long as 'those portions of the decision that are supported
by some evidence constitute a sufficient basis supporting the . . . discretionary decision to
deny parole . . . ,' the decision satisfies the requirements of due process." (In re Reed
(2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1071, 1086, quoting In re Dannenberg (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1061,
1100 & Rosenkrantz, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 677.)
As previously discussed, Rodriguez's continually evolving version of events, his
deflection of blame, his minimization of his actions, and the other evidence of insight and
responsibility deficits provided sufficient evidence to support the Board's decision. It is
apparent from the Board's remarks during the parole hearing that the Board rested its
decision as much or more on these deficits as it did on any other factor. Consequently,
we have no difficulty concluding the Board would have reached the same decision even if
had not considered Rodriguez's childhood experiences adversely.
II
Ex Post Facto Violation
A
In 2008 California voters approved Proposition 9, known as "Marsy's Law."
(Vicks, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 278.) Among its effects, it amended section 3041.5 to
"increase the period of time between parole hearings but allow for the advancement of a
20
hearing if a change in circumstances or new information subsequently establishes that
there is a reasonable probability the prisoner is suitable for parole." (Vicks, at p. 278.)
Former section 3041.5 required the Board "to provide annual parole hearings
following the initial hearing, except that a hearing could be deferred for (1) up to two
years 'if the board finds that it is not reasonable to expect that parole would be granted at
a hearing during the following year and states the bases for the finding' or (2) up to three
years 'if the prisoner has been convicted . . . of more than one offense which involves the
taking of a life, and the board finds that it is not reasonable to expect that parole would be
granted at a hearing during the following years and states the bases for the finding.'
[Citation.] Thus, at the time [Rodriguez] committed his crime[], he was entitled to an
annual parole hearing unless the Board found that it was not reasonable to expect that he
would be granted parole in a year, in which case his parole hearing could be deferred for
up to two years." (Vicks, supra, 56 Cal.4th at pp. 283-284.)
Current section 3014.5 parole hearing "deferral periods range from a default
period of 15 years to a minimum of three years. More specifically, the next hearing is to
occur in 15 years, 'unless the board finds by clear and convincing evidence that the
criteria relevant to the setting of parole release dates . . . are such that consideration of the
public and victim's safety does not require a more lengthy period of incarceration for the
prisoner than 10 additional years.' (§ 3041.5, subd. (b)(3)(A).) If the Board makes such a
finding, the next hearing shall be in 10 years unless the Board finds, again by clear and
convincing evidence and considering the same criteria and considerations, that a period
of more than seven years is not required. (§ 3041.5, subd. (b)(3)(B).) In that event, the
21
next hearing shall be in three, five, or seven years. (§ 3041.5, subd. (b)(3)(C).)" (Vicks,
supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 284, fn. omitted.)
The Board applied Marsy's Law in this case to set Rodriguez's parole hearing
deferral period at five years. Rodriguez contends the application of Marsy's Law to him
violates ex post facto principles.7
B
Both the federal and state constitutions proscribe ex post facto laws. (Vicks,
supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 287.) One function of these proscriptions "is to bar enactments
which, by retroactive operation, increase the punishment for a crime after its commission.
[Citations.] Retroactive changes in laws governing parole of prisoners, in some
instances, may be violative of this precept." (Garner v. Jones (2000) 529 U.S. 244, 249-
250 (Garner); Vicks, at p. 287.) Whether the application of Marsy's Law to Rodriguez is
an ex post facto violation depends on whether its application "creates a significant risk of
prolonging [Rodriguez's] incarceration." (Garner, supra, at p. 251.) To establish an as
applied violation, Rodriguez "must demonstrate, by evidence drawn from the [law's]
practical implementation by [the Board], that its retroactive application will result in a
longer period of incarceration than under the earlier [law]." (Id. at p. 255; Vicks, at
p. 312.)
7 A party may assert a statute violates ex post facto law principles both on its face and as applied. (See, e.g., Vicks, supra, 56 Cal.4th at pp. 278-279.) Rodriguez is asserting only an as applied challenge. The California Supreme Court has previously concluded Marsy's Law does not violate ex post facto law principles on its face. (Vicks, at p. 279.) This conclusion is binding on us. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455.) 22
In this case, Rodriguez has not submitted any evidence the law's practical
implementation by the Board will result in a longer period of incarceration for him. The
stipulations, documents from other cases, and attorney declaration he submitted are, at
worst, not evidence at all or, at best, not evidence of Marsy's Law application to him.
(See, e.g., Vicks, supra, 56 Cal.4th at pp. 313-315.) Thus, we have no factual basis to
conclude there is a significant risk application of the law to him will result in a longer
period of incarceration.
Nonetheless, Rodriguez asserts his history of short parole hearing deferral periods
and the dearth of evidence to support his current parole denial provides him with a
reasonable basis for suspecting he would be found suitable for parole sooner than his next
scheduled parole hearing. He further asserts the provisions available to advance his next
parole hearing are inadequate because they provide no practical possibility of an annual
parole hearing, "[h]e has obtained no advancement of any hearing set for him, and the
Board's track record . . . gives him little hope that his next hearing . . . will be advanced."
We are not persuaded by either assertion. As we explained in part I, ante, there is
ample evidence to support both the current parole denial and the five-year parole hearing
deferral period. In addition, "Marsy's Law did not alter the criteria for obtaining release.
By reducing the frequency of hearings at the outset and allowing the advancement of a
hearing date 'when a change in circumstances or new information establishes a reasonable
likelihood that consideration of the public and victim's safety does not require the
additional period of incarceration of the prisoner' [citation], Marsy's Law affords
prisoners an opportunity to have their suitability for parole considered when there is a
23
reasonable likelihood they are suitable. [Rodriguez] does not indicate that he has
requested an advanced hearing date or that there is any changed circumstance or new
information that would support a conclusion that there is a reasonable likelihood he is
suitable for parole. Thus, it does not appear that he has lost an opportunity to serve less
time due to the longer delay before his next parole suitability hearing." (Vicks, supra, 56
Cal.4th at p. 312.)
Further, as the California Supreme court has also explained, "if the Board makes a
finding by clear and convincing evidence that a deferral period of more than seven years
is not required, the Board has discretion to schedule the next hearing in seven, five, or
three years; there is no additional finding required to set the next hearing for three rather
than five years later. (§ 3041.5, subd. (b)(3)(C).) The fact that the Board deferred
[Rodriguez's] hearing for five years, despite its discretion to set the hearing for three
years, establishes that it would not have exercised its discretion to set the next hearing
within the time limits existing under the prior law." (Vicks, supra, 56 Cal.4th at pp. 312-
313.)
Finally, after the briefing in this case was completed, a federal district court
determined the parole hearing deferral provisions in Marsy's Law violate a class of
inmates' ex post facto rights and enjoined the Board from applying the provisions to the
class. (Gilman v. Brown (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2014) 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26386, [19],
46, 70, 82.) The injunction was to take effect 31 days after the court's decision unless a
timely appeal is filed. (Id. at p. [83].)
24
We requested and received supplemental briefing on the application of the
decision to this case. We conclude the decision does not apply for two reasons. First,
federal district court decisions are not binding on us. (Castaneda v. Department. of
more importantly, the evidence upon which the federal district court based its decision is
not properly before us. Thus, Rodriguez cannot rely upon the decision to meet his burden
of establishing a prima facie case for relief. (People v. Duvall (1995) 9 Cal.4th 464, 474
[to state prima facie case for relief, inmate must (1) state facts underlying claim fully and
with particularity, and (2) "include copies of reasonably available documentary evidence
supporting the claim."].)
DISPOSITION
Relief denied.
MCCONNELL, P. J.
I CONCUR:
HALLER, J.
25
Aaron, J., dissenting:
Penal Code section 3041, subdivision (d) " 'mandates that the Board 'normally' set
a parole date for an eligible inmate . . . unless it determines that [the] inmate poses a
current threat to public safety.' (In re Prather (2010) 50 Cal.4th 238, 249 (Prather),
quoting In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181, 1202 (Lawrence)." (In re Riley (May 22,
2014, No. A137349 [2014 WL 2142367 at [10]] (Riley), italics added.) "The nexus to
current dangerousness is critical." (Id. at [11].) In Lawrence and In re Shaputis (2008) 44
Cal.4th 1241 (Shaputis I), the California Supreme Court clarified that, "in evaluating a
parole-suitability determination by either the Board or the Governor, a reviewing court
focuses upon 'some evidence' supporting the core statutory determination that a prisoner
remains a current threat to public safety—not merely 'some evidence' supporting the
Board's or the Governor's characterization of facts contained in the record." (Prather,
supra, at pp. 251–252, italics added.)
Thus, as the majority acknowledges, " '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.' " (Maj. opn. at p. 14, quoting Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th
at p. 1212.) "[B]ecause the paramount consideration for both the Board and the Governor
under the governing statutes is whether the inmate currently poses a threat to public
safety, and because the inmate's due process interest in parole mandates a meaningful
review of a decision denying parole, the proper articulation of the standard of review is
whether there exists 'some evidence' demonstrating that an inmate poses a current threat
to public safety, rather than merely some evidence suggesting the existence of a statutory
factor of unsuitability." (Prather, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 252, citing Lawrence, supra, 44
Cal.4th at p. 1191.)
"If simply pointing to the existence of an unsuitability factor and then
acknowledging the existence of suitability factors were sufficient to establish that a
parole decision was not arbitrary, and that it was supported by 'some evidence,' a
reviewing court would be forced to affirm any denial-of-parole decision linked to the
mere existence of certain facts in the record, even if those facts have no bearing on the
paramount statutory inquiry. Such a standard, because it would leave potentially
arbitrary decisions of the Board or the Governor intact, would be incompatible with our
recognition that an inmate's right to due process 'cannot exist in any practical sense
without a remedy against its abrogation.' " (Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1211,
quoting In re Rosenkrantz (2002) 29 Cal.4th 616, 664 (Rosenkrantz).)
The factors that the Board cited in denying Rodriguez parole are 1) the
circumstances of the commitment offense; 2) his "unstable social history"; 3) his failure
to accept full responsibility for, and his minimization of, his involvement in the
commitment offense by deflecting some blame to Field and Field's wife; and 4) his lack
of insight into the underlying causes of the commitment offense. While there may be
some evidence in the record that supports the Board's characterization of the facts and/or
its findings of the existence of statutory factors of unsuitability, the Board has entirely
failed to articulate any nexus between its stated reasons for denying parole and a
conclusion that Rodriguez would pose a current threat to public safety if released.
2
Instead, in a conclusory and circular statement, the Board asserts, "Since [Rodriguez]
lacks insight and is still a danger, he cannot develop the requisite skills, the coping
mechanisms, that would assure [the Board] that he would not reoffend and therefore
would not be dangerous."
In fact, the comprehensive risk assessment prepared by the forensic psychologist
before the 2013 parole hearing concluded that Rodriguez poses a low risk of violence if
paroled. There is nothing in the record that would support a contrary finding.
With respect to the significance of the circumstances of the commitment offense in
determining suitability for parole, while " 'the Board and the Governor may rely upon the
aggravated circumstances of the commitment offense as a basis for a decision denying
parole, the aggravated nature of the crime does not in and of itself provide some evidence
of current dangerousness to the public unless the record also establishes that something
in the prisoner's pre- or postincarceration history or his or her current demeanor and
mental state, indicates that the implications regarding the prisoner's dangerousness that
derive from his or her commission of the commitment offense remain probative of the
statutory determination of a continuing threat to public safety.' " (Riley, supra, 2014 WL
2142367 at [15], quoting Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1214.) Even assuming that
the record in this case supports the Board's determination that the commitment offense
was "especially heinous" (which, in my view, it does not), there is simply no evidence
that would indicate the existence of anything in Rodriguez's pre- or postincarceration
history or his current demeanor and mental state that would meet the test set forth above.
3
As to the second factor cited by the Board, Rodriguez's alleged "unstable social
history," the majority rightly discounts this factor since there is no evidence in the record
that would support a finding that Rodriguez in fact has an unstable social history.
With respect to the third factor, i.e., a failure to accept full responsibility for, and
minimization of, involvement in the commitment offense as indicated by Rodriguez
deflecting some blame to Field and Field's wife, even assuming that the Board's finding
in this regard is accurate,1 the Board has entirely failed to articulate any nexus between
this factor and current dangerousness on Rodriguez's part.
Finally, with respect to a lack of insight, while " ' [c]onsideration of an inmate's
degree of insight is well within the scope of the parole regulation' " (Riley, supra, 2014
WL 2142367 at [12], quoting In re Shaputis (2011) 53 Cal.4th 192, 218), "the critical
question is whether there is some evidence in the record to support the conclusion that
whatever deficiency may exist in petitioner's understanding of the forces that led him to
commit the murder[ ] demonstrates that petitioner currently poses a threat to public
safety." In In re Morganti (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 904, the court reversed the Board's
denial of parole, concluding that the Board had failed to articulate any connection
between any lack of insight on the part of the inmate and the conclusion that he was
currently dangerous. The court observed, "Even if—as we do not believe—reasonable
minds could find 'some evidence' in the record that Morganti lacks a satisfactory level of
1 In this regard, it is worth noting that in the weeks prior to the murder, Field threatened Rodriguez at gunpoint over Rodriguez's affair with Field's wife.
4
insight of some sort, the record is manifestly bereft of evidence connecting any such
deficit to the conclusion he would present a risk to public safety if released on parole."
(Id. at p. 925.) The Morganti court asserted, "Morganti's positive institutional behavior,
his advanced age, and chronic and degenerative health problems, his lengthy participation
in virtually every rehabilitative program available to him, his statements to the
psychologists who evaluated him, and his statements to the Board, do not establish any
likelihood Morganti would present a risk to public safety if released on parole. They are
rationally indicative only of suitability for parole, not unsuitability." (Ibid.)
With the exception of the reference to Morganti's health problems, all of the
observations that the Morganti court made about the inmate in that case apply to
Rodriguez. As the majority acknowledges, Rodriguez's conduct in prison has "largely
been exemplary," he has "numerous laudatory chronos," he has "actively participated in
self-help programs for many years, including substance abuse and anger management
programs," and he "is a devout Christian and spends much of his free time participating
in Christian ministries." In addition, "[h]is wife, children and other family members have
supported him throughout his incarceration and plan to continue doing so." (Maj. opn. at
p. 10.) As in Morganti, even assuming a lack of "a satisfactory level of insight of some
sort" (Morganti, supra, 204 Cal.App.4th at p. 925) on Rodriguez's part, there is simply no
evidence in the record that he would present a risk to public safety if released on parole.
There is nothing in the record to suggest that Rodriguez's offense was anything other than
"a one-time occurrence, neither preceded nor followed by any evidence of petitioner
having a violent nature." (Riley, supra, 2014 WL 2142367 at [14].)
5
Like the Lawrence court, I appreciate that "the 'some evidence' standard is
extremely deferential" (Rosenkrantz, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 665), that our responsibility
is to consider the whole record in the light most favorable to the Board's determination,
and that only "a modicum of evidence" is needed to support that determination.
(Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1226.) However, I also agree with that court's
observation that, a determination that "an inmate is currently dangerous" because he
"lacks insight"—or for any other reason—cannot be predicated merely upon "a hunch or
intuition," or guesswork. (Ibid. at pp. 1213 & 1228.) A determination for which there is
no evidentiary support—indeed, conflicts with virtually all pertinent evidence—is
arbitrary and capricious. It is not rational.
A faithful application of Lawrence makes clear that Rodriguez's case for parole is
equally, if not more, compelling than was Lawrence's. To begin with, like Lawrence,
Rodriguez had no criminal history prior to the commitment offense, has followed the
rules in prison, and has participated in numerous self-help and vocational programs while
in prison. Further, the record unequivocally demonstrates—as did the record in
Lawrence—that the commitment offense was perpetrated under "the stress of an
emotional love triangle." (Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1225.) Moreover, the
Supreme Court noted that Lawrence's murder of her lover's wife was "an isolated
incident, committed while petitioner was subject to emotional stress that was unusual or
unlikely to recur." (Shaputis I, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1259.) The record establishes that
Rodriguez's murder of Field was committed while Rodriguez was in a similar
emotionally stressful situation that is not likely to recur.
6
Lawrence committed a first degree murder by planning to shoot and stab a
completely blameless victim (her lover's wife) multiple times, and executing that plan.
(Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1193.) Rodriguez, in contrast, committed a second
degree murder by bludgeoning to death a man who had recently threatened to kill him, at
gunpoint. Lawrence callously described the killing to family members as a "birthday
present," remained a fugitive for many years, and upon being arrested by the police,
claimed that the victim's husband had committed the murder. (Ibid.) Rodriguez
confessed to the killing within days of the offense and has long expressed his remorse for
his actions. While Lawrence displayed features of "three psychological disorders—
borderline personality disorder, antisocial disorder, and avoidant personality disorder"
(id. at pp. 1194-1195)—during the initial period of her incarceration, there is no evidence
that Rodriguez has ever suffered from any mental illness.
In sum, because the record is "manifestly bereft" (Morganti, supra, 204
Cal.App.4th at p. 925) of evidence that any of the factors on which the Board relied in
denying parole in this case support a conclusion that Rodriguez would pose a risk to
public safety if released on parole, I dissent.
AARON, J.
7
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus, finding that some evidence supported the Board of Parole Hearings' determination that the petitioner remained a current threat to public safety due to a lack of insight and failure to accept full responsibility.
Issues
Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Board of Parole Hearings' finding that the petitioner remained unsuitable for parole.
Whether the five-year parole denial period constitutes an ex post facto law as applied to the petitioner.
Disposition. denied
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We conclude the record contains some evidence to support the Board's findings.”
“We conclude there is at least a modicum of evidence to support the Board's conclusion Rodriguez was currently dangerous because he had not accepted full responsibility and did not possess adequate insight into why he murdered Field.”