In Re Shaputis
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
CORRIGAN, J.
Here we reaffirm the deferential character of the “some evidence” standard for reviewing parole suitability determinations. Whether *199to grant parole to an inmate serving an indeterminate sentence is a decision vested in the executive branch, under our state Constitution and statutes. The scope of judicial review is limited. The “some evidence” standard, which we articulated in In re Rosenkrantz (2002) 29 Cal.4th 616 [128 Cal.Rptr.2d 104, 59 P.3d 174] (Rosenkrantz) and refined in In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181 [82 Cal.Rptr.3d 169, 190 P.3d 535] (Lawrence), is meant to…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- In re LawrenceCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
- In Re SturmCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- In re ShaputisCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
- Jackson v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Schmir v. SchmirCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by49 opinions
- In re VicksCalifornia Supreme Court · 2013
- In re MartinezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- In re MorgantiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- In re StevensonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- In re DavidCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.