Skip to content
Name: In re Miranda
Case #: C062411
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 01/07/2011
Summary

The remedy for a due process violation at a parole-suitability hearing is a new hearing. Petitioner is not entitled to credit against his parole period for the time spent in custody as a result of the unsupported parole denial. In 1984, petitioner was convicted of second degree murder. In 2003, the Board of Parole found him suitable for parole, but the Governor reversed the decision. In a habeas corpus proceeding, the superior court held the Governor’s ruling was unsupported and granted the petition. The appellate court reversed the superior court order. In the meantime, petitioner had been released and the appellate court ruled that he could stay out of custody until the board held a new parole-suitability hearing. In 2007, the board found petitioner was not suitable for parole, but petitioner was not returned to prison until 2008. He then filed a petition for habeas corpus from the 2007 hearing but that was denied. In 2009, petitioner filed the present petition. In June 2009, the board again found petitioner suitable for parole. Because petitioner was now out of custody, his claim that the 2007 board ruling was unsupported was without remedy because the only remedy to such a claim is a new hearing. Since he was out of custody, his petition was moot. Additionally, the court has no authority to grant credit for the time from the 2007 denial to the 2009 release as that would infringe on the board’s authority.