Judge rules that passage of SB 394 violated state Constitution

Anybody surprised the Sacramento Democrats violated the State Constitution.  They so love criminals and murderers, they passed legislation to allow a life sentence to actually mean 25 years.

“Judge James P. Arguelles made his final ruling in the People of the State of California vs. the Board of Parole Hearings case on Monday, determining that SB 394, which allowed Ramazzini and others sentenced as juveniles to life without the possibility of parole to be eligible for a parole hearing after serving 25 years, was “not a lawful fix because it amends Proposition 115 without the required two-thirds majority” needed by the Assembly to pass.

Ramazzini was convicted of the special circumstances – first degree murder of his friend Erik Ingebretsen after luring him to a remote location just north of Colusa in July 1997 to be beaten and stabbed. Both boys were just 16 at the time of the incident.”

Why do we have to sue to get laws enforced and the Constitution upheld.  This is tyranny—what a Third World State looks like.

Judge rules that passage of SB 394 violated state Constitution

Appeal Democrat,  10/30/20 

Instead of having the opportunity to present his case before the parole board next summer, convicted murderer Nathen Ramazzini will likely spend the rest of his life behind bars after a Sacramento County Superior Court judge ruled that the passage of Senate Bill 394 violated the California Constitution.

Judge James P. Arguelles made his final ruling in the People of the State of California vs. the Board of Parole Hearings case on Monday, determining that SB 394, which allowed Ramazzini and others sentenced as juveniles to life without the possibility of parole to be eligible for a parole hearing after serving 25 years, was “not a lawful fix because it amends Proposition 115 without the required two-thirds majority” needed by the Assembly to pass.

Ramazzini was convicted of the special circumstances – first degree murder of his friend Erik Ingebretsen after luring him to a remote location just north of Colusa in July 1997 to be beaten and stabbed. Both boys were just 16 at the time of the incident.

Colusa County Chief Deputy District Attorney Brendan Farrell filed a Petition for Writ of Prohibition in the Colusa County Superior Court in the summer of 2018, suing the Board of Parole Hearings over its enforcement of SB 394.The lawsuit was later transferred to the Sacramento County Superior Court. Farrell argued that the bill was passed unconstitutionally without a two-thirds vote needed in the Assembly because it amends a law created by proposition.

Ramazzini’s lawyers argued early in the case that the district attorney’s office did not have standing to bring the lawsuit, filing their own writ in the Third District Court of Appeals that was denied by the court earlier this year.

They also argued that the bill addressed the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that the sentence of life without the possibility of parole is a violation of the Eighth Amendment right of those convicted as juveniles, regardless of the severity of their crime, as youth-related factors should be considered.

SB 9, enacted in 2012, allows prisoners convicted as juveniles who have served at least 15 years of a life sentence to petition the court to be resentenced. The original sentencing court can decide if a lesser penalty is warranted but the law only applies to convicts who were 18 or under at the time of sentencing.

“If the sentence imposed for the murder of their son and brother is to be changed, exposing them to traumatic hearing after traumatic hearing, it should be done only according to law, and should properly account for their suffering,” said Farrell.

Farrel said the legislature must act according to the law and local authorities, such as the Colusa County District Attorney’s Office, can and should protect the constitution by vigilantly monitoring state actors and pursuing enforcement actions when necessary.

Instead of the four attempts at a resentencing hearing allowed under SB 394, Erik’s Law proposed that one hearing was sufficient enough to determine if a life without parole offender was remorseful, rehabilitated or was sincerely coerced by an adult co-offender. If a judge ruled that the offender remains a rare juvenile who is permanently incorrigible and irreparably corrupt, they would not receive further opportunities toward resentencing or juvenile parole board hearings provided by SB 394.

About Stephen Frank

Stephen Frank is the publisher and editor of California Political News and Views. He speaks all over California and appears as a guest on several radio shows each week. He has also served as a guest host on radio talk shows. He is a fulltime political consultant.

Speak Your Mind

*