Metropolitan News-Enterprise

 

Wednesday, January 19, 2022

 

Page 1

 

Newsom Failed to Put Forth ‘Some Evidence’ Supporting His Blocking of Parole—C.A.

 

By a MetNews Staff Writer

 

The Third District Court of Appeal yesterday took the rare step of reversing the denial of a writ of habeas corpus in a case where an inmate contests the governor blocking his parole.

Acting Presiding Justice Ronald B. Robie wrote the majority opinion. It says that Gov. Gavin Newsom’s decision to countermand the Board of Parole Hearings’ grant of parole to murderer/robber Anthony Louis King “lacks ‘some evidence” upon which to conclude, consistent with state and federal due process standards, that petitioner’s release on parole would present an unreasonable risk of danger to the community.”

Justice Louis Mauro dissented.

King’s convictions were affirmed by the Third District on Nov. 25, 1991.

Newsom’s Statement

In vetoing the release of King, pursuant to Art, V, §8(b) of the California Constitution and Penal Code §3041.2, Newsom said, “I am troubled that Mr. King does not better understand how he came to commit these murders.”

He went on to comment:

“I commend Mr. King for his positive institutional record and encourage him to maintain his good conduct. However, Mr. King must understand the factors that led him to commit this crime and gain the skills necessary to avoid returning to dependent behavior before he can be successful on parole and released into the community.”

Newsom added:

“I have considered the evidence in the record that is relevant to whether Mr. King is currently dangerous. When considered as a whole, I find it shows that he would pose an unreasonable danger to society if released from prison at this time. Therefore, I reverse the decision to parole Mr. King.”

Robie’s Opinion

Robie said in an unpublished opinion that Newsom “does not suggest petitioner has failed to develop insight into his crimes; the Governor instead believes petitioner’s insight was not ‘deep’ enough—which we interpret to mean petitioner’s insight is insufficient.” He remarked that the governor “points to no evidence in the record to explain why he believes the lack of insight is significant” and “cites no evidence that petitioner’s shortcoming in his insight is an indication of current dangerousness.” 

The jurist said that Newsom “points to no evidence in the record showing petitioner has failed to manage his dependent personality disorder characteristics or that he will fail to do so following his release” and “points to no evidence indicating petitioner will return to associating with negative influences upon his release, nor does he provide any reasoning for reaching such a conclusion.”

 He declared that “there is no basis to find petitioner unsuitable for parole.”

Mauro insisted that “there is a rational nexus between the evidence and the ultimate determination of current dangerousness,” and said the denial of relief should be affirmed.

The case is In re King, C093956.

 

Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company