Bamboozled (17 page)

At first Joey says he was told that he would be released if he could obtain his credits for time served. So he wrote the parole board office in Sacramento explaining this error, but it remained uncorrected.

Joey says he maintained faith in Attorney Lum; she appeared to be in his corner. After about a week Joey got called to pickup his legal mail. It included the following letter from Tracy Lum, requesting $5,500:

Joseph Torrey, C.D.C # V-21699

Mule Creek State Prison, B10-150L

P.O. BOX 409040

Ione, California 95640-9040

Dear Mr. Torrey,

The decision by the Board of Parole Hearings in May of 2009 to deny your parole and to give you a two-year denial was absurd. The fact that you were not given credit for twenty-four plus years in custody is more than difficult to deal with.
In spite of this, the fight is not over!
The Judge who re-sentenced you to prison after your co-operation with law enforcement and successful parole period said,
“Torrey get something in front of me if you are not paroled.”
Mr. Torrey you need to file a Writ of Habeas Corpus and ask a Court of law to consider reviewing the injustices in your case.

My fees regarding Writs of Habeas Corpus include
a flat fee of S5.500 for the three State Courts
. This fee is non-refundable even if the case is won at the first level of Court. There is an additional flat fee of
$5.500 if you want to proceed to the Federal Level of Courts
if your case is unsuccessful in State Court; I'm willing to continue the fight on your behalf. Although there are no guarantees, I believe your case could be successful if brought to the Court's attention and I hope you can raise the funds to move forward.

Until the final bell (as you would say),

Tracy Renee Lum

Attorney at Law

Unable to afford Tracy Lum, Joey thought his best chance would be Judge Espinoza's Democrat and pro-inmate views, as well as his “letter of the law” approach.

In October 2010, Joey was called back to the legal mail desk. He felt that he had articulated the appeal properly and presented the facts. Joey took a deep breath and read:

The Court has read and considered the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed on August 1 8, 2009 by be Petitioner, the Return filed on July 14, 2010 by the Respondent, the supplemental letter filed on July 23, 2010 by the Respondent and the Traverse filed on September 14, 2010 by the Petitioner. The Petition challenges the Board of Parole Hearings' (Board) May 29, 2009 finding that the Petitioner was not suitable for parole and denying him parole for two years. The Petition also challenges the Board's calculation of the Petitioner's time credits and minimum eligible parole date, as well as the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's failure to merge his prisoner files.

The Petitioner was initially received into the Department of Corrections on February 6, 1980 after he was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to a term of 25 years to life in prison. See Petition Exhibit E, pg. 4. He was then ordered released on January 9, 2002 after he prevailed on a writ of error corum nobis regarding his plea agreement. See Petition Exhibit D, pg. 1; Petition Exhibit E, pgs. 13-14; Petition Exhibit H. That order was reversed and the Petitioner was returned to custody on January 23, 2004. See Petition Exhibit F, pg. 1. During the 2009 suitability hearing, the Board indicated that the Petitioner would not be afforded credit for any time served prior to 2004 and that his minimum eligible parole date was January 23, 2004. The Board also found the Petitioner unsuitable for parole, denying him parole for two years. See 2009 Board Hearing Transcript, pgs. 72-88.

Subsequently, the Petitioner's time credits and minimum eligible parole date were corrected to reflect he time he served prior to his release in 2002. He is now being given credit for serving his sentence between February 6, 1980 and January 4, 2002 and from January 23, 2004. See July 22, 2010 Letter From Respondent, exhibits A and C. Additionally, due to the Board's errors, the Petitioner has been scheduled for a rehearing on November 19, 2010. See July 22, 2010 Letter From Respondent, Exhibit B.

The Court finds the Petition is moot, because the changes requested by the Petition have been made and he has been granted a new suitability hearing in light of those changes. Although Petitioner remains in custody, the only remedy available to him from his Petition is for the Court to grant it, directing the Board to reconsider Petitioner's parole suitability in accordance with due process. See
In re Rosenkrantz
(2002) 29 Cal.4th 616, 658. Because a rehearing has already been scheduled, the Petition is moot.
See In re Holmes,
(1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 483, 484. Should the Board determine that the Petitioner is not suitable for parole at the rehearing, he Petitioner may then contest the legitimacy of his continued confinement with a new Petition.

1

Minutes Entered

10-J2-10

County Clerk

Joey received a modification order and Philip Reisner, Chief of Legal Affairs, articulated the errors that he had corrected, but Joey needed the California Department of Corrections Legal Affairs to correct the mistake of giving him a new prison number and processing him as a new inmate.

Joey sent a complaint to the Judge in LA.

Mr. Reiser:

I do hope that this missive finds you well. Per your BPT 1135 dated July 14, 2010 (Miscellaneous Decisions, see attached), I was assured as I attended my Board of Prison Hearing on November 19, 2010, that your department's continued blunders had been corrected. A blunder that caused me seven (7) years of unfair and prejudicial CDCR decisions and board hearings. But on November 19, 2010, I was astonished to be informed, prior to even entering into the BPH room by my attorney Jay Dyer, that I was being postponed pending a new “Psychological Report.”

How can I be denied my freedom again based on more blunders by your office? Shouldn't your office have ordered, “Need New Psychological Report?” And if not, why wasn't it? How can you, as legal counsel, continue to be harmfully misguiding and missinforming after signing your name to an order for a new hearing? I am amazed and would truly like to know how this can transpire after my previous hearing in 2008 was postponed for the same reason, and incompetence ran wild there as well. I was informed then that I did
not
need a new report, (see attached). And at my 2009 BPH hearing I was bamboozled as the only thing that Commissioner Anderson requested of me was to obtain thirty (30) years of earned credits via the court; but there was
no
mention of needing a “New Psychological Report”!!

I was sure that Judge Peter Espinoza, the Deputy Attorney General Jennifer L. Heinisch, and your office of “Legal Counsel” had this injustice corrected; and per due process, I would be entitled to a fair and impartial hearing. I can only hope that you have the class and professionalism to respond to this justified inquiry - This is my life.

Receiving a stack of legal letters in reply, Joey learned he was rescheduled for another parole board suitability hearing on February 3, 2011.

Joey took his medication with a hot cup of tea and looked out through his window that is the size of a carton of cigarettes. He saw a bird fly by and in his head it signified that he would accept whatever decisions came his way and would pursue peace and calm.