Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

hearinghabeas corpusregulationfelonyparole
trialhabeas corpusregulationfelonyparole

Related Cases

Palomba-Bourke v. Commissioner of Social Services, 312 Conn. 196, 92 A.3d 932
View Case »
Gonsalves v. Superior Court, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr., 2017 WL 3574825
View Case »
Matter of JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 158 A.D.3d 686, 68 N.Y.S.3d 733 (Mem), 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 01058
View Case »
Matter of Marriage of Scott, 263 Kan. 638, 952 P.2d 1318
View Case »
Johns v. Hodges, 62 Md. 525, 1884 WL 5962
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Grinker, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr., 2018 WL 4275421

Facts

Paul A. Grinker was convicted in 1996 for being a felon in possession of a firearm and had 81 prior serious felony convictions, resulting in a 25 years to life sentence under the Three Strikes law. In February 2018, the Board of Parole Hearings found him suitable for parole, but he would not be eligible until his minimum eligible parole date in February 2019. Grinker filed a habeas corpus petition in March 2018, challenging CDCR regulations that excluded him from early parole consideration under Proposition 57.

In 1996, a jury convicted Grinker of being a felon in possession of a firearm (former Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1)) and found 81 prior serious felony conviction allegations true. The trial court sentenced Grinker to 25 years to life pursuant to the Three Strikes law.

Issue

Whether the CDCR regulations that exclude nonviolent third-strike offenders from early parole consideration under section 32(a)(1) of the California Constitution are valid.

The legal issue presented in this case is identical in all material respects to the issue presented in Edwards.

Rule

The court applied the principle that regulations inconsistent with constitutional provisions are void, referencing the case In re Edwards.

Grinker is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus because, for the same reasons stated in our opinion in Edwards, the key provision of the regulations that makes him ineligible for early parole consideration relief under section 32(a)(1) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3491, subd. (b)(1)) is inconsistent with the constitutional provision and therefore void.

Analysis

The court found that the key provision of the CDCR regulations making Grinker ineligible for early parole consideration was inconsistent with the constitutional provision, thus rendering it void. This conclusion was based on the reasoning provided in the earlier case of In re Edwards, which addressed the same legal issue.

The court found that the key provision of the CDCR regulations making Grinker ineligible for early parole consideration was inconsistent with the constitutional provision, thus rendering it void.

Conclusion

The court granted Grinker's petition for habeas corpus, directing the CDCR to repeal the challenged regulations and ordering the Board of Parole Hearings to assess Grinker's eligibility for early parole.

The petition for habeas corpus is granted.

Who won?

Paul A. Grinker prevailed in the case because the court determined that the CDCR's regulations were unconstitutional and ordered his eligibility for early parole to be reconsidered.

Paul A. Grinker prevailed in the case because the court determined that the CDCR's regulations were unconstitutional and ordered his eligibility for early parole to be reconsidered.

You must be