Page 1
Sadistic Slayer/Rapist Won’t Be Freed on Parole—C.A.
Justices Deny Habeas Corpus Petition Sought by Man Whose Release Was Blocked by Governor
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. One of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, for the second time, yesterday denied a petition for a writ of habeas corpus sought by a man who, in 1991, beat, raped and murdered his girlfriend, and whose release on parole was blocked by Gov. Gavin Newsom.
In denying relief, the court found “some evidence” in support of Newsom’s Nov. 4, 2022 determination that Mark A. Rogowski—sentenced in 1992 to 25 years to life in prison for murder and six years for rape—must remain incarcerated, overriding a decision of the Parole Board. “Some evidence,” Acting Presiding Justice Truc T. Do noted in an unpublished opinion, is all that is needed for a decision vetoing parole to be upheld.
Newsom in 2020 likewise prohibited the release of Rogowski and the appeals court on Aug. 19, 2020, found that decision to have factual support.
In 1991, Rogowski bludgeoned the head of Jessica Bergsten with a metal object and, while she bled, handcuffed her, carried her upstairs, shackled her, raped her over a period of two to three hours, stuffed her into a bag, choked her to death, and then buried her in a shallow grave in the desert.
Governor’s Written Decision
In explaining his decision, Newsom pointed to two altercations Rogowski had with other inmates in 2021. He said:
“I have…concluded that Mr. Rogowski must do additional work to deepen their insight into the nexus between their reported sex addiction and violent crime. At their hearing, the Board asked Mr. Rogowski about the causative factors of their crime, and they responded, ‘the sexual aspect of, uh, the crime was rooted in me being a sex addict for one and not being in touch with that.’ Mr. Rogowski’s ability to connect their history of sex addiction to their sexual violence is a first step. Mr. Rogowski did not, however, indicate that they understand the primary causative factor of the brutally violent aspect of the crime.”
He continued:
“When the psychologist asked Mr. Rogowski, ‘You’ve depicted killing her as sort of incidental to quieting her, but how else did you think it would end?’ Mr. Rogowski answered, ‘I don’t know, I don’t know. [I] just didn’t care, just didn’t give a damn about the consequences. This was my depravity, not caring about a human life.’ While Mr. Rogowski has demonstrated a sincere commitment to their rehabilitation, they must do additional work to understand what led them to act so violently, and demonstrate more developed empathy.”
Newsom declared:
“I have considered the evidence in the record that is relevant to whether Mr. Rogowski is currently dangerous. When considered as a whole, I find the evidence shows that they currently pose an unreasonable danger to society if released from prison at this time. Therefore, I reverse the decision to parole Mr. Rogowski.”
Do’s Opinion
In an 84-page slip opinion, Do wrote:
“When we consider the entire record in this case under the extraordinarily deferential standard of review, we readily conclude the record contains more than “some evidence” to support the Governor’s conclusion that Rogowski continues to pose an unreasonable risk to public safety. The evidence, in our view, was robust and compelling.”
The justice observed that “the record contains more than just some evidence that Rogowski has minimized the extent and severity of his sexual sadism disorder,” and remarked that his “assurances” as to his conduct toward women upon his release are not “sufficient to moot the Governor’s concern about his deficient insight into his sexual sadism.”
Do made note Rogowski “has repeatedly been found deceitful and manipulative and has provided inconsistent statements on matters ranging from his personal history to what happened during and after the crimes.”
Brutality of Crimes
She pointed out:
“Rogowski’s violence against Bergsten was prolonged, brutal, and extremely disturbing in its details. He bludgeoned Bergsten over the head without warning or provocation, bound and shackled her, cut her clothing off of her body as she bled, and engaged in an hours-long session of rape and cruel physical and emotional abuse. By his own account, he capped this violence off with a refusal to give Bergsten a drink of water or loosen her restraints, treated her like chattel by stuffing her into a surfboard bag while still alive, and then suffocated her and disposed of her body in hopes that his violence would not be discovered.”
Do went on to note that “the only remaining objective evidence of the specifics of her mistreatment was her missing teeth.”
Relevance of Altercations
Rejecting the petitioner’s contention that Newsom improperly took into account his recent altercations, stressing that he was not the initial aggressor, Do wrote:
“[W]e note that in both incidents, Rogowski remained in areas of conflict rather than extricate himself, blamed others for the altercations, and provided inconsistent accounts of what occurred. This is some evidence Rogowski continues to lack awareness of dangerous or high-risk situations, placing him at risk for future violence. Rogowski’s response to the incidents also reveals a concerning pattern of dishonesty and avoidance of accountability, traits that are relevant to recidivism because they tend to show a belief that one’s wrongdoing will not be exposed and punished.
“The reemergence of this pattern of behavior is particularly relevant to Rogowski’s risk to public safety when considered in combination with the evidence Rogowski continues to minimize his culpability for the crimes and lacks sufficient insight into the connection between his sex disorder and violence.”
Justice David Rubin signed Do’s opinion. Without explanation, Justice Martin N. Buchanan concurred in the result, only.
The case is In re Rogowski, D084748.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company