Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

SHORE v. LOCKYER

March 25, 2003

DAVID SHORE, PETITIONER,
v.
BILL LOCKYER, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Susan Illston, United States District Judge.

JUDGMENT

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied on the merits.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID SHORE, No. C 02-2261 SI (PR)

Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS v.
BULL LOCKYER, Attorney General of the State of California,

Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

This matter is now before the court for consideration of the merits of David Shore's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus concerning his June 7, 2000 parole revocation. For the reasons discussed below, the petition will be DENIED.

BACKGROUND

A. Factual History

David Shore was sentenced to sixteen years in prison in March 1996, after a San Mateo County Superior Court jury convicted him of various sex offenses. Shore was released on parole on March 15, 2002. Shore's parole agent arrested Shore and delivered him to san Quentin State prison a month and a half later, on April 28, 2000, after receiving information that Shore contacted his ex-wife's employer in an attempt to obtain confidential information about his ex-wife. shore remained in San Quentin, and on June 7, 2002, a hearing officer at the Board of Prison Terms revoked Shore's parole after finding that Shore committed three parole violations when he made harassing telephone calls to three individuals after his March 15, 2000 release. The hearing officer recommitted Shore to nine months in prison, three months for each parole violation. Currently, Shore is on parole with a termination date of December 3, 2003. Shore's present petition concerns the Board of Prison Terms' decision to revoke Shore's parole; it does not concern the underlying criminal conviction. Accordingly, the Court limits its factual examination to Shore's alleged parole violations and parole revocation hearing.

The hearing officer at Shore's parole revocation hearing found that Shore violated three of the six charges against him: charge 2, for harassing his ex-wife by making a telephone call to Sandra Gunnett; charge 4, for making harassing telephone calls to Amy Vona; and charge 6, for making a harassing telephone call to Katherine Gallo. Shore allegedly made these calls between March 2000 and May 2000, and all relate to Shore's ex-wife, Fenty Kaliman, and their longtime, ongoing property settlement dispute. Fenty Kaliman is one of the individuals Shore is prohibited from contacting as a special condition of his parole.

1. Charge 2 — Telephone call to Sandra Gunnett

Charge 2 results from a telephone call Shore made during the morning of April 28, 2000 to Sandra Gunnett, the human resources manager at the company that employed Shore's ex-wife. Allegedly, the male caller who refused to identify himself and who insisted he worked for a credit agency, told Ms. Gunnett he needed credit information about Ms. Kaliman in order to accept Ms. Kaliman's credit application. Ms. Gunnett told the caller that she would not cooperate unless the caller identified himself and the company for which he worked. The caller began to talk louder and faster and told Ms. Gunnett that if she would not cooperate, then he would have to turn down Ms. Kaliman's application and that it would be Ms. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.