) PETITION FOR WRIT OF Petitioner, ) HABEAS CORPUS

Transcription

1 SHAWN CHAPMAN HOLLEY KINSELLA, 1 WEITZMAN, ISHER, KUMP & Aldisert LLP State Bar # SHolley@kwikalaw.com Wilshire Blvd., Third Floor Santa Monica, 3 California Telephone: Facsimile: DAVID 6 A. NICKERSON State Bar # nickersonlaw@comcast.net Las Gallinas Avenue, Suite 183 San Rafael, 8 California Telephone: Facsimile: Attorneys for Petitioner, SARA 11 JANE OLSON THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 16 In re, ) No. 17 ) SARA JANE OLSON, ) 18 ) PETITION FOR WRIT OF Petitioner, ) HABEAS CORPUS 19 ) On Habeas Corpus. ) 20 ) Petitioner, SARA JANE OLSON, by and through her attorneys, respectfully petitions 24 this Court for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and by this verified petition alleges the following 25 facts and causes for the issuance of said Writ:

2 1 2 I. 3 Petitioner, Sara Jane Olson, is presently confined and incarcerated at the Central California 4 Women s Facility, a state prison operated by the California Department of Corrections 5 and located in Chowchilla, California. 6 Respondents are the Warden of the Central California Women s Facility, the Commissioner 7 of the Board of Parole Hearings, and the Attorney General for the State of California. 8 Hereafter, Respondents will be collectively referred to as the Board II. 11 Petitioner was sentenced in People v. Sara Jane Olson, Los Angeles County Superior 12 Court case number A on January 18, On February 14, 2003, Petitioner 13 was sentenced in People v. Montague, Olson, Harris, and Bortin, Sacramento County 14 Superior Court case number 02F On December 24, 2007, the Acting Executive 15 Officer of the Board of Parole Hearings, George Lehman, issued a decision following 16 the final order of the Los Angeles County Superior Court in an earlier habeas proceeding, 17 In Re Olson, Los Angeles County Superior Court case number A According 18 to the Board s decision, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A, Her earliest possible 19 release date has been calculated to March 17, Olson was in fact paroled on March 20 17, On March 21, 2008, she was arrested by agents of the Department of Corrections. 21 On March 22, 2008, she was returned to the Central California Women s Facility 22 by agents of the Department of Corrections. In a press release dated March 22, 2008, a 23 copy of which is attached as Exhibit B, the Board and/or the Department of Corrections 24 claimed that it miscalculated Olson s release date and that her release date from prison 25 was actually March 17, 2009, and not March 17, The Board claimed that it had 26 failed to account for her consecutive sentence for the Sacramento conviction - 2 -

3 in determining 1 her release date. 2 3 III. 4 Petitioner s claim for relief is based upon this pleading, the accompanying Exhibits, 5 and any and all evidence, records documents, pleadings, authorities, or argument 6 which may be presented to this Court in this proceeding. All of the above described 7 records, documents, and papers are incorporated by reference into this Petition as is the 8 accompanying exhibits IV. 11 Petitioner has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law except by way of this petition V. A 15 prior habeas petition was filed in the Sacramento County Superior Court concerning 16 the first serious offender hearing conducted by the Board in In re Sara 17 Jane Olson, Sacramento County Superior Court case number 03F That writ was 18 granted by Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Thomas Cecil on July 12, The 19 Sacramento County Superior Court ordered the Board to vacate the 14 year extended 20 determinate sentence it imposed on Olson. A second serious offender hearing was then 21 held on September 7, Following that second serious offender hearing, Olson filed 22 a second petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Sacramento County Superior Court. 23 That petition was then transferred to the Los Angeles County Superior Court. In re Olson, 24 Los Angeles Count Superior Court case number BH The Superior Court granted 25 in part and denied in part that petition. The Board appealed that portion of the Superior 26 Court s order which granted partial relief. The Board s appeal was - 3 -

4 docketed 1 as In re Sara Jane Olson, Second District Court of Appeal case number B Olson also filed a habeas petition in the Court of Appeal challenging those claims 3 which were denied by the Superior Court. That habeas petition was docketed as In re Sara 4 Jane Olson, Second District Court of Appeal case number B The two proceedings 5 were consolidated, then reversed by the Court of Appeal on April 12, 2007 because 6 the Superior Court had failed to issue an order to show cause. In re Sara Jane Olson (2007) Cal. App. 4 th 790. All of the claims were remanded to the Superior Court for 8 further proceedings. 9 Back in the Superior Court, Olson raised only two claims. First she claimed that her extended 10 sentence violated Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S She also claimed 11 that a one year enhancement imposed by the Board was unlawful. Her Apprendi claim was 12 rejected by the Superior Court on October 19, The Board conceded that the one 13 year enhancement was unlawful and agreed to reduce her term by one year. On December 14 24, 2007, Olson s release date was adjusted to account for that one year reduction On November 14, 2007, Olson filed a second petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Court 17 of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two. In re Sara Jane Olson, Second 18 District Court of Appeal case number B The sole claim for relief raised in that 19 petition was the claim that the extended sentence imposed by the Board violated Apprendi 20 v. New Jersey. On January 7, 2008, without issuing an order to show cause, the Court of 21 Appeal summarily denied that habeas petition. On 22 or about February 15, 2008, Olson filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California 23 Supreme Court which raised only the Apprendi v. New Jersey issue. In re Sara Jane 24 Olson California Supreme Court case number S That petition is still pending 25 before the California Supreme Court. No 26 other applications, appeals, or writs are presently pending before any court - 4 -

5 relating 1 to Olson s incarceration /// VII. 6 This Court has original jurisdiction over this petition pursuant to Article VI, section 7 10,of the California Constitution and pursuant to Penal Code section Penal Code section 1473(a) states: Every person unlawfully imprisoned or restrained 9 of his liberty, under any pretense whatever, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus, 10 to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment or restraint. 11 In this case, as will be discussed more fully below, the Board claims that it released 12 Olson on parole on March 17, 2008, as a result of an error in calculating her release 13 date. It claims that Olson was given an erroneous release date because it failed to include 14 her sentence from Sacramento County in calculating her release date. Since it was Olson s 15 Sacramento sentence that was calculated incorrectly, and because the decision 16 to re-incarcerate her was made by the Board in Sacramento, jurisdiction and venue lie 17 with the Sacramento County Superior Court. Rule 4.552( c), states that when a habeas 18 petitioner challenges the denial of parole the petition must be heard by the superior 19 court in which the underlying judgment was rendered. The underlying judgment 20 at issue here is the judgment of the Sacramento County Superior Court VIII. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF Claim One 26 Summary: As the Board acknowledged in its press release on March 22, - 5 -

6 2008, Olson 1 was released to parole on March 17, Four days later, on March 21, 2008, the 2 Board approved the transfer of her parole to Minnesota, her place of residence. Thereafter, 3 without any claim that Olson violated any term or condition of her parole, the Board had 4 Olson arrested and forcibly returned to state prison. There is no legal authority 5 for the Board s action and it violated Olson s right to due process. Once released 6 from prison and placed on parole, a parolee can only be returned to prison if the Board revokes 7 or suspends the parolee s parole by alleging that she violated a condition of her parole. 8 Even then, a parolee is entitled to a hearing to determine whether she had, in fact, 9 violated a condition of her parole. The Board s actions in this case, without notice or a hearing 10 of any kind, were unlawful and violated due process. 11 The facts that support this claim are as follows Sara Jane Olson was an inmate at the Cental California Women s Facility 13 located in Chowchilla, California as a result of her convictions in Los Angeles County 14 Superior Court case number A and Sacramento County Superior Court case number 15 02F In a Miscellaneous Decision signed by the Acting Executive Director 17 of the Board of Parole Hearings dated December 24, 2007, the Board stated that Olson s 18 earliest possible release date has been recalculated to March 17, Similarly, 19 the cover letter to the Board s decision stated: Ms. Olson s earliest possible release 20 date has been recalculated to March 17, (A copy of the Miscellaneous Decision 21 and the cover letter dated December, 2007, are attached as Exhibit A On Monday, March 17, 2008, Olson was released from state prison and placed 23 on parole. She signed her parole agreement with the State of California several 24 weeks prior to her actual release. On Tuesday, March 18, 2008, she reported to the local 25 parole office at Antelope Valley, Los Angeles County, California, as she had been instructed 26 to do. On Friday, March 21, 2008, she received written confirmation that - 6 -

7 the transfer 1 of her parole to Ramsey County, Minnesota had been approved by the Board. She was 2 given travel documents which permitted her to travel to Minnesota. She was told that 3 she had to report to the Ramsey County parole office on Monday, March 24, On 4 Friday evening, March 21, 2008, she arrived at the Los Angeles International Airport 5 in order to fly to Minnesota. 64. At approximately 11:45 p.m. on March 21, 2008, while Olson waited 7 at the airport for her flight to Minnesota, eight armed employees of the Department 8 of Corrections arrested her. She was driven back to Antelope Valley in a caravan 9 of three Department of Corrections vehicles. She was permitted to spend the night at 10 her mother s residence in Palmdale while a officer remained outside the residence. 11 At approximately 10 a.m. the next morning, March 22, 2008, she was handcuffed 12 by employees of the Department of Corrections and driven to the California Institution 13 for Women at Frontera, California. She was then driven to the Central California 14 Women s Facility at Chowchilla, California On March 22, 2008, Olson s counsel called the office of the Board of Parole 16 Hearings in Sacramento several times. No one at the Board returned any of counsel s 17 telephone calls Late in the afternoon of March 22, 2008, the Board issued a press release, 19 attached hereto as Exhibit B. According to this press release, Olson was released 20 on parole on March 17, However, after receiving a request for review the Board, 21 or someone at the Department of Corrections, immediately reevaluated this sentence 22 calculation and revised the sentence accordingly to ensure that all appropriate time is 23 served. Apparently as a result of this reevaluation, the Board believed that Olson 24 is required to serve two additional years on a consecutive sentence for the Sacramento 25 conviction. Based upon this belief, which was never communicated to Olson or 26 her counsel, but only the media, Olson was taken into custody and returned to - 7 -

8 the California 1 Institution for Women At no time has the Board placed a parole hold on Olson. A parole hold 3 would require a showing that there is probable cause to believe the parolee has violated 4 parole. California Administrative Code, Title 15, section A parole hold may 5 be placed on a parole only if she is a danger to herself or to the person or property 6 of another, or if she is likely to abscond. Title 15, section The Board does not claim 7 that Olson is a danger to anyone or likely to abscond. Title 15, section 2605 requires 8 that a parolee subject to a parole hold be retained in local custody pending a hearing. 9 Olson was not retained in local custody pending a hearing The Board has not and is not revoking Olson s parole. The Board is only 11 authorized to revoke parole in any case where the parolee has violated parole. Title 15, 12 Section The Board does not claim that Olson violated any term and condition 13 of her parole. If the Board sought to revoke Olson s parole, a hearing would be necessary. 14 Morrissey v. Brewer 408 U.S The Board has indicated that it intends to conduct 15 no such hearing There is no legal procedure, statute or regulation to describe the Board s action. 17 Olson was not arrested for committing a new offense. Her parole was not revoked. 18 She was not subject to a parole hold. Because it believes it made an ministerial error, the 19 Board had Olson arrested and re-incarcerated in prison. The Board s actions were certainly 20 without precedent. For the reasons set forth below, they were also unlawful The Board was without authority for arresting and reincarcerating 23 Olson. It is beyond dispute that Olson was on parole after her release from prison on 24 March 17, Once an inmate is released on parole, the Board can only 1 25 Oinlk e^a klo prbqflpni _bbk ebia ^o oeb C^ifclrkf^ Iknofopoflk clr Wljbk

9 suspend 1 or revoke her parole. It cannot simply arrest her and re-incarcerate her. It has no legal authority 2 to do so. Equally illusory is the argument, which petitioners made for the first time 3 in this Court, that the Board had the authority to reimprison a pre-parolee for any reason 4 or for no reason. Young v. Harper (1997) 520 U.S. 143,151, fn.3: a preparolee 5 is entitled to due process under Morrissey v. Brewer. The holding of Young v. Harper 6 applies here. The 7 Board s authority is derived from Penal Code section That statute gives the Board 8 full power to suspend or revoke any parole... See also In Re Rosenkrantz (2002) 929 Cal. 4 th 616, 659, fn. 13: Finally, after a prisoner has been released on parole, both the 10 Board and the Governor have the power to suspend or revoke parole for cause. The terms 11 suspend, revoke, and rescind are terms of art with precise meanings. 12 When an inmate has a parole date set by the Board, but before she is actually released 13 from prison, the Board may rescind the projected parole date. In Re Fain (1983) 145 Cal. App. 3 rd 540, 545: The Governor concedes, as he must, the distinction between 15 the revocation of parole, which refers to the situation in which an inmate has previously 16 been released from prison, and the rescission of an unexecuted grant of parole, i.e. the 17 withdrawal of a release date prior to the commencement of parole. Once 18 an inmate is released from prison and placed on parole, the Board may only suspend 19 or revoke her parole. Under Morrissey v. Brewer, supra, 408 U.S. 471: a parolee 20 is entitled to two separate hearings during the usual process of parole revocation. In Re Becker 21 (1975) 48 Cal. App. 3 rd 8, 293. The first hearing is in the nature of a preliminary 22 hearing and the ultimate function of the hearing officer at this initial stage is to determine 23 whether there is probable cause or reasonable grounds to believe that the arrested 24 parolee has committed act that would constitute a violation of parole conditions. Id. If the 25 hearing officer does determine that grounds exist for the revocation of the inmate s 26 parole, the inmate remains in continued detention and is returned to the state - 9 -

10 correctional 1 institution pending the final determination of the parole board on revocation. 2 Id. If the hearing officer orders the inmate detained pending the final determination 3 of the parole board on revocation, the inmate s parole is suspended. Id., 294: petitioner s 4 parole was suspended long after the effective date of Morrissey. See also In 5 Re Harrison (1976) 16 Cal. 3 rd 63, 66: inmate s parole was suspended without a hearing 6 when new charges were filed against the parolee. Discussing an earlier case, the Harrison 7 court also noted that the Adult Authority should vacate its preliminary order suspending 8 parole once the defendant has been acquitted of the charges upon which the suspension 9 order was based. Id., at 67. Title 15, section 2601 sets forth the reasons a parolee 10 suspected of a parole violation may be detained by a parole hold. 11 The Board makes the final determination of revocation. Title 15 section 2615 states: The 12 board is authorized to revoke parole in any case where the parolee has violated 13 parole. The basis upon which parole may be revoked are set forth in Title 15, section The Board does not contend that Olson engaged in any of the kinds of behavior 15 that can lead to the revocation of parole. 16 Finally, in In Re Fain (1977) 65 Cal. App. 3 rd 376, 391, the Court stated the following: 17 A member approved recommendation of parole becomes final, of course, and subject 18 to revocation as procedurally distinguished from recession if cause appears, 19 when the inmate is actually released on parole. 20 What the Board did to Olson was not a recession, a suspension, or a revocation of her parole. 21 At no time has the Board or any one else alleged that Olson has violated parole. 22 Under Penal Code section 3060 the Board may return a parolee to prison only if they suspend 23 or revoke their parole. They did neither. There is no authority for what the Board did 24 to Olson. The Board s acts were unlawful and violated Olson s right to due process. 25 Olson should be immediately released from prison and re-instated on parole

11 1 2 Claim Two Summary: 3 Once Olson was released from prison and placed on parole, equitable 4 estoppel bars the Board from returning her to prison solely because of the Board s 5 ministerial mistake. The 6 facts that support this claim are as follows: 1. 7 Olson incorporates by reference the factual allegations made in Claim One The Board claimed in its press release of March 22, 2008, that it made an 10 error in calculating Olson s release date and that it regrett[ed] the mistake. Olson was 11 arrested and returned to prison solely as a result of the Board s mistake The elements of equitable estoppel are present in this case. In Johnson 13 v. Williford (9 th Cir. 1982) 682 F. 2d 868, Johnson was sentenced in 1977, under a federal 14 statue that require a minimum term of ten years in prison without the possibility of parole. 15 Nevertheless, after numerous reviews by the Parole Commission and various federal 16 officers Johnson was released on parole in Some 15 months later when the error 17 was discovered, he was arrested and his parole revoked. Id., at 869. The Ninth Circuit 18 held that the government is estopped from asserting that Johnson is ineligible for parole. 19 Furthermore to return Johnson to prison under the circumstances of this case would violate 20 due process. Id., at 874. As in Johnson, the Board is estopped in this case from returning 21 Olson to prison. As 22 Johnson stated there are four elements to equitable estoppel: (1) The party to be estopped, 23 in this case the Board, must know the facts; (2) he must intend that his conduct shall be 24 acted on or must so act that the party asserting estoppel has a right to believe it is so intended; 25 (3) the latter must be ignorant of the facts; and (4) he must rely on the former s 26 conduct to his injury. Id., at 872. All four elements apply to Olson s case

12 1 Assuming for the sake of argument that the Board s claimed error is true, that it failed to 2 consider Olson s Sacramento sentence in calculating her release date, it cannot be argued 3 that they did not know the facts. The Board certainly knew that the Sacramento 4 Superior Court imposed a sentence for second degree murder. It cannot contend 5 otherwise. 6 The second element is also present. Olson surely had a right to believe that the Board had 7 correctly calculated her release date. 8 Thirdly, Olson had no way of knowing that the Board had incorrectly calculated her release 9 date. As Exhibit A indicates, as recently as December 24, 2007, the Board recalculated 10 her release date to March 17, Olson had no way of knowing that this recalculation 11 did not include her Sacramento sentence. 12 Finally, Olson detrimentally relied upon the Board s error after she was placed on parole. 13 As noted in Claim One, Olson had been reunited with her husband as soon as she was 14 released from prison, she had successfully transferred her parole to Minnesota, and was 15 literally minutes away from boarding a plane that would have reunited her with her family. 16 Additionally, the Board s action took a huge emotional toll on Olson and her family. 17 After being released from prison for five days, Olson was literally snatched by the Board 18 in the dark of night and imprisoned without notice, without a hearing, and without 19 an explanation. Such an experience is certainly horrific and may have caused lasting 20 psychological damage. 21 As a result of its admitted mistake or error, the Board is equitably estopped from returning 22 Olson to prison. She should be immediately released and reinstated on parole Summary: 26 Claim Three Olson was on parole and then she was in prison. The Board

13 claims 1 that it miscalculated Olson s release date. It further claims that it recalculated her release 2 date and that she must serve an additional two years. Regardless of how the Board s 3 actions are described, they must comply with due process. To date, the Board has not 4 explained to anyone, particularly Ms. Olson or her counsel, how it determined her original 5 release date and or how it has recalculated her release date March 21, At minimum, 6 due process requires that the Board fully explain its error and how it recalculated 7 her release date to March 17, The facts that support this claim are as follows: 91. Olson incorporates by reference the factual allegations made in Claims 10 One and Two The Board has a history of miscalculating release dates. However, in every previous 12 case, the Board s miscalculations required the inmate to serve a longer sentence, not a shorter 13 one. An article in the Los Angeles Times dated December 13, 2007, a copy of which 14 is attached as Exhibit C, stated the following: Up to 33,000 prisoners in California may be entitled to release earlier than scheduled because the state has miscalculated their sentences, corrections officials said Wednesday. For nearly two years, the overburdened state prison agency has failed to recalculate the sentences of those inmates despite a series of court rulings, including one by the California Supreme Court. The judges said the state applied the wrong formula when crediting certain inmates for good behavior behind bars. Some inmates in recent months almost certainly stayed longer in prison than they should have...some currently in prison most likely should be free, they said. But many whose sentences are too long are not scheduled to be released for months or years

14 1 Given the Board s admission that it miscalculated 33,000 other release dates, Olson 2 believes that the Board s recalculation of her sentence is inaccurate In a letter dated December, 2007, the Board indicated that Ms. 4 Olson s earliest possible release date has been recalculated to March 17, (Exhibit 5 A.) Of course, the Board did not explain to Olson or her counsel how it determined this 6 release date In its press release of March 22, 2008, the Board claimed that 8 after a careful review it determined that Olson is required to serve two additional 9 years. (Exhibit B.) Once again, the Board has not explained to Olson or her counsel 10 how it determined that Olson s release date should be March 17, At this time, 11 neither Olson nor this Court has any method to determine whether this release date is 12 accurate Regardless of what the Board thinks it has done, it has effectively 14 revoked Olson s parole. She was on parole and now she is in prison. 15 [T]he Fourteenth Amendment s Due Process Clause creates a liberty interest in 16 parole such that parole revocation must be accompanied by sufficient process, Morrissey 17 v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482 (1972). Holcomb v. Lykens (2 nd Cir. 2003) 337 F. 3 rd 217, Olson has not received due process in any form. 19 As discussed in Claim One, revocation of parole is a two-step process. First, there 20 is a preliminary hearing or prerevocation hearing. The purpose of this hearing is to 21 determine whether there is probable cause to believe the parolee has violated a condition 22 of his parole. Gagon v. Scarpelli (1973) 411 U.S. 778, If probable cause is 23 found, the parolee is entitled to a final revocation hearing. The final revocation hearing 24 must be the basis for more than determining probable cause; it must lead to a final 25 evaluation of any contested relevant facts (e.g., whether parole conditions were violated)

15 and consideration 1 of whether the facts as determined warrant revocation (e.g. whether there are 2 mitigating circumstances). In Re Becker (1975) 48 Cal. App. 3 rd 8, 293, quoting 3 Morrissey v. Brewer, supra, 408 U.S. at Due process is required at both the preliminary hearing and the final revocation hearing. 5 In Re Melendez (1974) 37 Cal. App. 3 rd 755, At the preliminary hearing 6 and at the final revocation hearing due process entitles the parolee to notice of the alleged 7 violations, an opportunity to appear and present evidence, a conditional right to confront 8 witnesses, an independent decision maker, and a written report of the hearing. Gagnon 9 v. Scarpelli, supra, 411 U.S. at Regardless of what the Board claims it did, the fact is that Olson was on parole and now she 11 is in prison. She had a liberty interest in parole and that liberty interest cannot be terminated 12 or destroyed without due process. If the Board is not going to follow the twostep process 13 required by Morrissey for a parole revocation, it must nevertheless provide Olson with 14 due process. 15 Olson contends that due process in this situation requires at least the following. First, the 16 Board must demonstrate in writing to Olson and this Court how it determined the March 17 17, 2008, release date and what that date was incorrect. Any and all documents 18 which were used to determine this release date must also be provided to Olson and the 19 Court. Second, the Board must demonstrate in writing how and why it recalulated 20 Olson s release date to March 17, Again, all supporting documents should 21 be provided to Olson and the Court. Olson should then be given adequate time to evaluate 22 the Board s actions and determine whether she agrees or disagrees with the Board s 23 calculations. If Olson disagrees with the Board s calculations, she will present her reasoning 24 in writing to the Court. Thereafter, if the Court deems it necessary, witnesses 25 will be called and cross-examined. Finally, the Court should issue a decision determining 26 Olson s correct release date that is not subject to further review by the Board

16 1 2 Since it was the Board s purported mistake that lead to the present situation, and Olson was 3 released then re-incarcerated through no fault of her own, Olson should be released 4 on parole during this proceeding. If the Court determines that the Board s released 5 date of March 17, 2009, is correct, Olson will return to prison to serve out the remainder 6 of her sentence IX. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Petitioner Sara Jane Olson respectfully requests this Court to: Issue a writ of habeas corpus or an order to show cause to Respondent, 16 Board of Parole Hearings, to inquire into the lawfulness of Petitioner s arrest 17 and re-incarceration in state prison on March 22, 2008; Conduct a hearing at which Respondent must show cause why Olson should 19 not be immediately released and reinstated on parole; Adopt a procedure whereby Olson receives due process of law; Grant Olson whatever further, additional, or alternative relief this Court deems 22 appropriate and in the interests of justice. Dated: March 23 24, Respectfully submitted,

17 1 2 SHAWN CHAPMAN HOLLEY DAVID NICKERSON Attorneys for Petitioner SARA JANE OLSON VERIFICATION 23 I, DAVID A. NICKERSON, declare that: 24 I am an attorney admitted to practice law in the State of California. I am counsel 25 for petitioner herein, who is confined and restrained of her liberty at the Central

18 California 1 Women s Facility, Chowchilla, California. 2 I am authorized to file this petition for writ of habeas corpus on petitioner s behalf. I am making 3 this verification because I prepared the instant petition and the accompanying 4 volume of exhibits and because the allegations set forth in this petition are more within 5 my knowledge than petitioner s. 6 I have read the foregoing petition for writ of habeas corpus and declare that the contents 7 of the petition are true. 8 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed 9 on March 24, 2008, at San Rafael, California DAVID A. NICKERSON