California Criminal Appeals Lawyer Blog

A Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus has long been the safety net that ensures the United States criminal justice system remains a fair one. However, over recent years, both lawmakers and judges have restricted access to the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. In large part, this is due to the pervasive belief that judges and juries “got it right” the first time and that giving inmates a second bite at the apple opens to door to frivolous litigation. However, the Great Writ’s protections are instrumental in ensuring fairness and equality in what is now understood to be an imperfect system. In this article, leading California Appeals lawyers of Barhoma Law, P.C. discuss recent changes to the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Over the past 50 years, the United State Supreme Court has implemented a wide range of restrictions on inmates’ access to the writ of habeas corpus. For example, over the past few decades, the U.S. Supreme court has held that Fourth Amendment violations cannot be relitigated through a writ of habeas corpus. The Court has also determined that the Great Writ can only be used to enforce existing constitutional rights and that federal courts cannot hear claims through a habeas petition unless the inmate presented (and exhausted) those claims in state court.

However, perhaps the most significant law affecting the writ of habeas corpus over the last century was the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, or AEDPA. Under AEDPA, inmates have just one year to file a federal habeas petition after exhausting their state-court remedies. AEDPA also imposes a strict requirement that an inmate includes all their claims in a single filing, meaning a second or successive writ of habeas corpus is frequently summarily denied unless it raises new and compelling evidence.

Recently, California criminal appeals attorney Matthew Barhoma appeared on CourtTV to discuss Governor Newsome’s recent decision not to sign for the release of Leslie Van Houten, despite the parole board’s decision that she should be released on parole. Now 72 years old, Leslie Van Houten was given a life sentence for helping Charles Manson carry out the infamous LaBianca murders back in August 1969. At the time, Van Houten was 19 years old.

In 2020, Van Houten obtained a recommendation from the parole board that she should be released from prison. The board found that she “does not pose an unreasonable risk to public safety” and that she has shown remorse for her actions. However, Governor Newsome refused to sign off on Van Houten’s release, finding that, in his opinion, she posed an unreasonable danger if released. This marks the fifth time the parole board has found Van Houten should be released on parole, and the fifth time the sitting governor reversed the parole board’s decision.

Governors in every state have broad power to grant clemency to an inmate at their discretion. However, California is unique in that it is one of just a few states that allows the governor to reverse a parole board’s decision regarding any inmate who was sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of life in prison with the possibility of parole. Attorney Barhoma notes, “Ultimately, the governor is exercising his discretion. I think that he is looking at the criteria quite frankly. There may be public hysteria. She possibly poses a further threat. The way she describes her admiration for Mason maybe really hasn’t changed. So, here are a lot of twists and turns in this.” Here is the interview with Attorney Matthew Barhoma, California Appellate attorney: