 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Leyva v. Nielsen9/26/2000
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Linda M. Wilde, Judge. Affirmed.
Plaintiff Ricardo Leyva, a prison inmate, filed this personal injury action against Jim Nielsen, Chairman of the Board of Prison Terms. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the complaint and plaintiff Leyva appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
"Where a trial court sustains a demurrer without leave to amend, we review such action under the abuse of discretion standard. [Citation.] If there is a reasonable possibility that the pleading can be cured by an amendment, the trial court's ruling will be reversed. [Citation.] [ ] On review, we examine the Complaint's factual allegations to determine whether they state a cause of action on any available legal theory. [Citation.] We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts which were properly pleaded. [Citation.] However, we will not assume the truth of contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law [citation] and we may disregard any allegations that are contrary to the law or to a fact of which judicial notice may be taken. [Citation.]" (Interinsurance Exchange v. Narula (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1140, 1143.)
ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT
The complaint purports to allege causes of action for personal injury (fraud and deceit) and it seeks damages of $25,000 for alleged breach of a plea agreement and $25,000 for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The specific allegations of the complaint, which we take as true for the purpose of testing its sufficiency, are as follows. On December 8, 1980, plaintiff signed a plea agreement in which he agreed to a 15- year-to-life sentence. He allegedly became eligible for parole on May 21, 1990, after serving 10 years in prison.
In July 1996, after 16 years in prison, the Board of Prison Terms conducted a parole hearing for plaintiff and declined to release him on parole. It found the circumstances of the crimes were egregious, and that plaintiff had not participated in self-help and therapy programs.
Plaintiff apparently appealed the decision denying parole. The appeal was dismissed as lacking merit, and plaintiff was given the following explanation: "The earliest a prisoner sentenced to state prison for the term of 15 years to life may be released to parole is after having served 10 years. Being eligible and being found suitable are two separate things. Just because the Court may have told you that you would be eligible for parole in 10 years doesn't mean that the [Board of Prison Terms] would find you suitable." (Original emphasis.)
The complaint further alleges that, on May 22, 1998, a news article was posted on the Solano Prison law library bulletin board. The article included portions of an interview with defendant Nielsen, Chairman of the California Board of Prison Terms. A sidebar accompanying the article is titled "Parole conditions." It states: "Goals that may be set for inmates sentenced to life in prison to determine if they are suitable for parole: [ ] Complete 15 to 21 years in prison (if sentenced to 15-to-life)." In addition to the time goal, other goals are stated, including such items as "Earn a job -skills certificate."
Plaintiff further alleges that the statement shows that the Board of Prison Terms had no intention of releasing an inmate in his position after 10 years in prison. Instead, it always intended to require such an inmate to serve at least 15 years in prison. Since that fact was not disclosed to him when he signed the plea agreement, he alleges that the plea agreement was based on fraud and deceit. He also contends that the effect of the Board's refusal to consid
Page 1 2 3 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|