Skip to main content

California Court of Appeal

Reset A A Font size: Print

In re Miranda, C062411

In a parolee's petition for a writ of habeas corpus claiming that the Board of Parole Hearings violated his due process rights at a parole-suitability hearing in 2007 because its determination that he was not suitable for parole was not supported by "some evidence" that he remained dangerous, is denied where: 1) contrary to petitioner's argument that his petition is not moot because, if it is found that the Board violated his due process rights in the 2007 parole-suitability hearing, the court can credit the time he should have been released toward his parole period, the California Supreme Court recently held that the remedy for a violation of due process at a parole-suitability hearing is a new hearing comporting with due process; and 2) because the petitioner has been released, a new hearing is unnecessary, and as such, even assuming the Board violated petitioner's due process rights at the 2007 parole-suitability hearing, the petition is moot.

Appellate Information

  • Decided 01/07/2011
  • Published 01/07/2011




  • California Court of Appeal


Copied to clipboard