Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

In re Morganti

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 28, 2012No. A132610Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

KLINE, P. J., Concurring and Dissenting.—

I concur in the majority opinion in all respects save one.

Christopher Morganti claims not only that the denial by the Board of Parole Hearings (the Board) of his request for parole is unsupported by “some evidence,” but also that the Board’s disregard for the statutory framework of parole and failure to accord parole applicants individualized consideration deprives him and implicitly all life prisoners a liberty interest safeguarded by article I, section 7, of the California Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Brown v. PlataSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
  2. In Re RosenkrantzCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
  3. In Re DannenbergCalifornia Supreme Court · 2005
  4. People v. WingoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
  5. In Re RodriguezCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API