In re DONALD RAY LEWIS on Habeas Corpus.
And four other cases.
Court of Appeals of California, Sixth District.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
March 13, 2009.
March 13, 2009.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Anya M. Binsacca and Denise A. Yates, Deputy Attorneys General, for Petitioner D. Sisto as Warden, etc.
Heather J. MacKay, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Respondent Donald Ray Lewis.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Anya M. Binsacca, Denise A. Yates and Scott C. Mather, Deputy Attorneys General, for Petitioner D. Sisto as Warden, etc.
Jacob Burland, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Respondent Morris L. Bragg.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Anya M. Binsacca and Denise A. Yates, Deputy Attorneys General, for Petitioner Ben Curry as Warden, etc.
Keith Wattley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Respondent Viet Mike Ngo.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Anya M. Binsacca, Denise A. Yates and Scott C. Mather, Deputy Attorneys General, for Petitioner Ben Curry as Warden, etc.
Michael Satris, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Respondent Donnell Eugene Jameison.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Anya M. Binsacca and Denise A. Yates, Deputy Attorneys General, for Petitioner James D. Hartley as Warden, etc.
Barbara B. Fargo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Respondent Arthur S. Criscione.
Court of Appeals of California, Sixth District.
OPINION
PREMO, J. —
In five separate proceedings below, the superior court issued five substantially identical orders1 in which it found that California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 2402, subdivision (c)2 is unconstitutionally vague "as applied" by the Board of Parole Hearings (Board) and that the Board is violating the separation of powers doctrine by arrogating to itself...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
