Page 1
Judge Ryan Orders Briefing on Possibility of Resentencing of Inmate Ordered Executed
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge William C. Ryan, who granted party-status to the family of a man slain in 1993 in connection with a proposed resentencing, has called upon the Office of District Attorney George Gascón to respond to the contention by the family’s lawyers that the office’s request for a lifting of the death sentence imposed on the murderer is not authorized by the statute upon which it relies.
The move by the judge, who specializes in resentencing matters and is seldom reversed, was taken Thursday in acting upon a “Victim’s Supplemental Submission Regarding P.C. 1170.03 Motion” filed the day before by former District Attorney Steve Cooley and victims’s rights lawyer Katleen Cady.
Penal Code §1170.03, which went into effect on Jan. 1, provides, in part:
“When a defendant, upon conviction for a felony offense, has been committed to the custody of the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation…the court may…at any time upon the recommendation of…the district attorney of the county in which the defendant was sentenced…recall the sentence and commitment previously ordered and resentence the defendant in the same manner as if they had not previously been sentenced….”
|
|
|
WILLIAM C. RYAN Los Angeles Superior Court Judge |
D.A.’s Office Position
Gascón’s office invoked that provision on Feb. 15 when it filed a resentencing recommendation, saying:
“The People ask this Court to vacate Scott Collins’s death sentence and resentence him to life with the possibility of parole (LWOP). Mr. Collins was only 21 years old at the time of the offense and he experienced hardship as a child, including the death of his father. Though he was identified as learning disabled, Mr. Collins’s disabilities were never adequately treated in school. Today, he is 51 years old and has had no serious rules violations in over 20 years.”
(“LWOP” stands for “life without the possibility of parole,” which suggests that there was a typographical error in referring to “life with the possibility of parole.”)
Ryan was asked to effect a resentencing in chambers in light of a proviso in §1170.03 that “[r]esentencing may be granted without a hearing upon stipulation by the parties.” A stipulation had been executed by by Deputy District Attorney Shelan Y. Joseph and Deputy Public Defender K. Elizabeth Dahlstrom, who is representing Collins.
Non-Public Hearing Opposed
Cooley and Cady responded on Feb. 17 by filing a “Notice of appearance and Assertion of Rights” objecting to the signing of an in camera order and calling for a hearing at which family members could be heard in opposition to judicially ordered commutation.
On Feb. 28, Ryan issued an order saying:
“The court takes note of the objection of counsel to the family of the victim to conducting a resentencing at chambers. Although the statute does permit such resentencing, in the court’s view that…runs contrary to the rights that victims and their family have in addressing the court and giving a victim impact statement. The court has never had the intention of conducting any resentencing proceeding at anything other than a public hearing on the record.”
He set a status conference for last Thursday.
New Point
Wednesday’s supplemental memorandum of points and authorities by Cooley and Cady sets forth that “Penal Code §1170.03 does not allow for the resentencing of any Death sentence,” pointing out that subd. (a)(3) specifies that “[n]othing in this article shall affect any provision of law that imposes the death penalty” except as provided in an inapplicable portion of the statute.
The memorandum also references §1170(e)(12) which says: “This subdivision does not apply to a prisoner sentenced to death or a term of life without the possibility of parole.”
The memorandum draws attention to §1170.03(b)(2) which :
“There shall be a presumption favoring recall and resentencing of the defendant, which may only be overcome if a court finds the defendant is an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety….”
The former district attorney and his erstwile deputy argued:
“The change of a death sentence to LWOP does not involve a ‘public safety’ analysis as the defendant remains in the custody of the California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation….”
The brief suggests that Ryan “may wish to ask the Attorney General…to provide guidance on whether the newly enacted Penal Code §1170.03 allows for resentencing of death or LWOP sentences, as the Attorney General has direct supervision of district attorneys and is responsible for uniform enforcement of the laws of California.”
Ryan accepted the suggestion. His order says:
“The court requests that within 20 days the People address in writing the points raised in the Rose Family filing. Furthermore, the Attorney General is also invited to address the points raised. If the Attorney General declines the invitation, then a one-page letter to that effect is sufficient.”
Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company