|
|
|
|
EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorneys for Respondent IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION
Respondent Dawn Davison, Warden of the California Institution for Women at Corona, California, answers the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by life inmate Susan Atkins, and admits, denies, and alleges the following: 1. Petitioner is lawfully in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation serving a life sentence following her conviction for eight counts of first degree murder, and one count of conspiracy to commit murder... 2. Petitioner does not challenge the propriety of her convictions, but instead seeks relief from the California Board of Parole Hearings' (Board) 2005 decision finding her unsuitable for parole... Petitioner contends that the Board violated her due process rights because: 1) the Board's decision was arbitrary because the Board knowingly relied on false information 2) the Board impremissibly based its decision on Petitioner's commitment offenses, which are remote in time, 3) the Board mischaracterized Petitioner's offenses as involving mutilation, 4) the Board refused to tell Petitioner how she fell short of parole suitability, 5) the Board violated Petitioner's substantive due process rights by intentionally subverting the parole process, 6) Petitioner was not given access to the materials used against her, and 7) the Board's decision violated Petitioner's plea agreement... 3. On June 1, 2005, Petitioner appeared before the Board for a subsequent parole consideration hearing... At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board found Petitioner unsuitable for release on parole because she would pose and unreasonable risk of danger to society or threat to public safety if released from prison... 4. The Board's decision was based, in part, on the facts and circumstances of Petitioner's crimes. The Board found that: 1) the murders were committed in an especially cruel and callous manner because each of the victims was either shot or stabbed multiple times, and one of the murders involved the stabbing death of a pregnant victim, 2) the offenses involved multiple victims (eight were attached and killed in three separate incidents), 3) Petitioner carried out the crimes in a dispassionate and calculated manner because the crimes were premeditated, 4) some of the victims were mutilated (one victim's ear was cut off, others were stabbed multiple times, and blood was used to write on the walls), and 5) the motive for the offenses was trivial in comparison to the nature and gravity of the murders (one victim was murdered for purpose of robbery, and the others for the purpose of inciting a race war)... The Board also found that Petitioner had an escalating pattern of criminal conduct because she was not deterred from committing future crimes after the murder of the first victim... 5. The Board also based its decision on Petitioner's prior criminal history, consisting of convictions for receipt of stolen property and possession of a concealed weapon; and arrests for reproducing a driver's license, possession of dangerous drugs, giving dangerous drugs to a minor, and grand theft... The Board further based its decision on Petitioner's unstable social history due to Petitioner's extensive use of narcotics including LSD, marijuana, hashish, and methamphetamine, as well as Petitioner's criminal history... 6. The Board also cited Petitioner's most recent psychiatric evaluation in support of its decision, finding the evaluation to be inconclusive. The psychiatrist opined that, while Petitioner admitted responsibility and expressed insight and remorse, complete assurance of her acceptance of responsibility is clouded by factual disputes stemming from her earlier versions of the crimes... 7. The Board also considered several positive factors in support of Petitioner's release on parole. The Board commended Petitioner for having acceptable parole plans, developing marketable skills, and for participating in substance abuse treatment programs... The Board found, however, that these factors did not sufficiently outweigh the negative factors... 8. Respondent denies that the Board's reliance on Petitioner's commitment offenses was improper or that the decision was based solely on the offenses. The Board also based its decision on Petitioner's prior criminal record, her escalating pattern of criminal conduct, her unstable social history, and her most recent psychiatric evaluation. Even assuming that the Board's decision was based solely on Petitioner's crimes, no due process violation occurred. 9. Respondent admits that Petitioner has exhausted her available state judicial remedies. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, in which she alleged the same claims as those alleged in the instant Petition... The superior court denied the petition in a reasoned decision, finding that the Board's findings were supported by ample evidence in the record, and that the Board's reliance on the Petitioner's crimes was proper given the aggravated and violent nature of the murders... Petitioner next filed petitions in the California Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court, again alleging the same claims as in the instant federal Petition... Both petitions were summarily denied without analysis or citation of authority... (Note from CharlieManson.com. The document runs 29 pages and this is just the first three or so.) |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
