In re Santana CA4/2

California Court of Appeal Jun 9, 2016 No. E064063Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus based on a joint stipulation, vacating the Board of Parole Hearings' decision and ordering a new hearing with appropriate interpreter services.

Issues

Whether the petitioner's due process rights were violated at a Board of Parole Hearings proceeding due to the lack of a Spanish-speaking interpreter.

Disposition. Granted

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The petition is therefore granted in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation.”

“The BPH decision dated April 9, 2015, is vacated, as is the order deferring petitioner’s next hearing for five years.”

“BPH shall provide a Spanish-speaking interpreter at this hearing, including any prehearing meetings between petitioner and his appointed counsel.”

Filed 6/9/16 In re Santana CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re JESUS SANTANA

On Habeas Corpus. E064063

(Super.Ct.No. RIC1507532)

OPINION

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of habeas corpus. David A. Gunn,

Judge. Petition granted.

Jesus Santa, in pro. per.; and Steve M. Defilippis, under appointment by the Court

of Appeal, for Petitioner.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gregory J. Marcot, Deputy Attorney

General, for Respondent.

On July 24, 2015, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging,

among other things: that he cannot communicate in English but can do so in Spanish;

that he appeared for a hearing before the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH); that no

interpreter was present; that the attorney appointed to represent petitioner at the BPH

proceeding did not speak Spanish and was frustrated with petitioner’s inability to

communicate in English; and that this attorney pressured petitioner to sign a form that he

did not understand but which waived his right to attend the BPH hearing. We requested a

In re Santana CA4/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

OPINION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAMIREZ P. J.

CODRINGTON J.

AI Brief