IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE In Re ) CASE No. B_________ ) LESLIE VAN HOUTEN, ) ) Related Cases: Petitioner, ) BH007887; S230851 ) B240743; B286023 on Habeas Corpus. ) S45992; S238110; ______________________________ ) S221618 Hon. WILLIAM C. RYAN, Judge Superior Court Case Nos. BH011585; A253156 _______________________________________________________ PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES _______________________________________________________ RICH PFEIFFER State Bar No. 189416 NANCY TETRAULT State Bar No. 150352 P.O. Box 721 Silverado, CA 92676 Telephone: (714) 710-9149 Email:
[email protected] Attorneys for Petitioner Leslie Van Houten 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION. 5 PROCEDURAL HISTORY. 9 POST SEPTEMBER 6, 2017, HEARING PROCEDURAL HISTORY, CASE S238110. 11 STATEMENT OF FACTS. 12 PETITIONER’S SEPTEMBER 6, 2017 PAROLE HEARING DECISION. 20 POST SEPTEMBER 6, 2017, HEARING PROCEDURAL HISTORY, CASE S238110. 22 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES.. 24 I. MS. VAN HOUTEN IS NOT AN UNREASONABLE RISK TO PUBLIC SAFETY.. 24 A. STANDARD OF REVIEW.. 24 1. Governor Reversal Standard of Review.... 24 2. The De Novo Standard of Review is Appropriate2..8 B. THE REVERSAL OF MS. VAN HOUTEN’S FINDING OF PAROLE SUITABILITY WAS A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.. 30 II. THE GOVERNOR FORFEITED THE ISSUE OF DENYING PAROLE BASED ON THE GRAVITY OF THE COMMITMENT OFFENSE WHEN HE FAILED TO STATE THAT REASON IN HIS 2016 REVERSAL. 38 III. MS. VAN HOUTEN WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS WHEN THE PROSECUTION HAD EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE IN THE CHARLES “TEX” WATSON TAPES, AND FAILED TO DISCLOSE IT.. 40 CONCLUSION. 43 PRAYER. 44 VERIFICATION - DECLARATION BY ATTORNEY RICH PFEIFFER.