In re Tripp
At issue in this case is whether petitioner BranDee Tripp is entitled to a parole release date. She is currently in prison because, on July 8, 1979, 10 year old Tameron Carpenter was strangled to death by Hilton Tripp and Randy Cook. At the time, petitioner, born in March 1959, was Hiltons wife and the mother of his child. In February 1981, petitioner was convicted by guilty plea of second degree murder and was sentenced to prison for 15 years to life. (Pen. Code, 187.) Under the plea agreement, other charges were dismissed, and petitioner agreed to testify against the man who solicited this murder, William Record, petitioners stepfather.
After a hearing on May 17, 2004, Californias Board of Prison Terms determined that petitioner, then age 45, was entitled to a parole date, as she is suitable for parole and would not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society or a threat to public safety if released from prison. The Board had previously found petitioner suitable for parole after a hearing on November 6, 2002, and that decision was reversed on April 4, 2003, by Governor Davis.
The overarching concern of the Board in granting a prisoner a parole release date is whether consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration for this individual. ( 3041, subd. (b).) A parole date should be denied if the prisoner will pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released from prison (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, 2402(a)),[4] in other words, if the prisoner is a continuing danger to the public. (In re Dannenberg (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1061, 1084) (Dannenberg).) Governor reviewed the May 2004 grant of a parole date and, on October 14, 2004, reversed it, asserting his belief that petitioner would pose an unreasonable threat to public safety if released from prison at this time.
Petitioner has challenged the Governors decision by a habeas corpus petition, which the Monterey County Superior Court denied in September 2005. In August 2006, this court issued an order to show cause asking the parties to further discuss whether some evidence supports the Governors determination that petitioner poses an unreasonable threat to public safety considering her actual role in the murder and her progress in prison. After reviewing the administrative record under a deferential standard, Court conclude that there is some evidence supporting the Governors decision and deny the habeas petition.
Comments on In re Tripp