California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(San Joaquin)
----
In re FIDEL JESSIE LOZANO,
On Habeas Corpus.
C051792
(Super. Ct. No. SC 033334A)
Fidel Jessie Lozano (petitioner) petitions for a writ of habeas corpus. He contends the Board of Prison Terms (now the Board of Parole Hearings; hereafter, the Board) erroneously denied him parole. (See Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (a).) We grant the petition in a limited respect.
In 1982 petitioner was convicted of second degree murder for killing Joseph Lopez (Mr. Lopez) and assault with a deadly weapon, with great bodily injury, for shooting Mr. Lopez's wife, Caroline Lopez (Mrs. Lopez). (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 245, subd. (a).) Petitioner was sentenced to 15 years to life on the murder conviction. The sentences on the assault conviction and various firearm and injury enhancements were stayed.
Petitioner unsuccessfully sought a writ of habeas corpus in the superior court. That court concluded the â€
Description
Petitioner petitions for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner contends the Board of Prison Terms (now the Board of Parole Hearings; hereafter, the Board) erroneously denied him parole. (See Pen. Code, S 3041, subd. (a).) Court grant the petition in a limited respect.
In 1982 petitioner was convicted of second degree murder for killing Joseph Lopez (Mr. Lopez) and assault with a deadly weapon, with great bodily injury, for shooting Mr. Lopez's wife, Caroline Lopez (Mrs. Lopez). (Pen. Code, Ss 187, 245, subd. (a).) Petitioner was sentenced to 15 years to life on the murder conviction. The sentences on the assault conviction and various firearm and injury enhancements were stayed.
Petitioner unsuccessfully sought a writ of habeas corpus in the superior court. That court concluded the "record show[ed] individualized consideration of [petitioner's] case and a determination of [parole] unsuitability based on some evidence."
Petitioner then filed a habeas corpus petition with this court. Petitioner contends (1) there was no evidence to support the Board's findings of parole unsuitability and a three-year parole denial; (2) the Board violated due process by continuing to rely on the facts of the offense to deny parole; and (3) his shackling at the parole hearing was unconstitutional. Court issued an order to show cause to the Board on April 27, 2006. Court agree with petitioner that there was no evidence to support the three-year parole denial, and court grant the petition in that respect.
