Legal Opinion
In Re Ruzicka
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 23, 1991No. F014251PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
THAXTER, J.
We hold that respondent James Randall Ruzicka was denied due process when he was not given a copy of the written record of the Board of Prison Terms’ (hereafter BPT) decision to retain him on parole. To that extent we follow In re Nesper (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 872 [266 Cal.Rptr. 113]. We disagree with Nesper’s conclusion, however, that the appropriate remedy is to invalidate the parole-retention determination. Instead, we order that Ruzicka be given a copy of the written record as required by Penal Code 1 section 3001, subdivision (a) so that he may pursue his right to an…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Morrissey v. BrewerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- In Re La CroixCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- In Re BowersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
- In Re WelchCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- In Re JohnsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
- In Re CarrCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
- In Re RoaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- People v. JackCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
- In re StoneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011