T he H onor abl e S uz a nne B . C onl on, U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJudge f orthe * N orthe rn D i s tr i c tof

I l l i noi s , s i tt i ng byde s i gna t i on. NO T F ORP UB L I C AT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT ED G A R K U N K LER, P et i t i on er- A pp el l ee , v. M AD EL ENE M . M UN TZ , R e s p o n d e n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 06- 55555 D . C . N o . C V -0 5 -0 6 4 7 3 -T JH ORDER

B e f o r e : C AN B Y an dT HO MAS , C i r c u i tJu d g e s , a n dC ON L ON , D i stri ct * Judg e. T he S t a t e of

C a l i f orni a , on be ha l f

of W a r de n M a de l e ne M unt z , appe a l e d the di stri ctcourtorder grant i ng E dg arK un kl er ’ s pet i t i on for aw ri tof habe as c or pus u n d e r2 8 U. S . C . § 2 2 5 4 . I n am e m o r a n du m d i s p o s i t i o n f i l e dMa r c h 7 , 2 0 0 7 , we re vers ed, fi nd i ng the C al i forni a gov erno r’ s dec i si on t o d eny K un kl erparol e w as supp ort ed by “ som e e vi dence. ” Ku n kle rv . Mu n tz , 226 F e d. A ppx. 669, 670- 71 ( 9th C i r . 2007) . K unkl e rt i m e l ype t i t i one d f orpa ne l r e he a r i ng a nd r e he a r i ng en banc . R e l y i ng on H

a y w a rd v . M a rs h a ll , 60 3 F . 3d 54 6 (9th C i r. 20 10 ) ( e n banc ), P e a rs o n v . Mu n tz , 6 0 6 F .3 d6 0 6 , 6 0 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) , am ended o n deni alof re h’g , 6 2 5 F .3 d5 3 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) , C o o ke v . So lis , 6 0 6 F .3 d1 2 0 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) , re v’ d , 

# FI LED MA R 09 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

131 S . C t . 859 ( U . S . J a n. 24, 2011) , a nd In re L aw re nce , 1 9 0 P .3 d5 3 5 , 5 3 9 ( C a l. 2008) , w e va c a t e d the M a r c h 7, 2007 m e m or a ndum di s pos i t i on a nd a f f i rm e d the d istrict co u rt, fin d in g th e S tate fa il ed to es tab li sh “so m e e v id en ce ” o f K u n k ler’s future dangerousness. D kt . N o. 50 (D ec . 27 , 20 10 ). T he S t at e pet i t i on s f or panel re hear i ng i n l i gh tof Sw artho utv. C oo ke , 13 1 S . C t . 85 9 (U . S . Jan. 24 , 20 11 ) ( per c ur i am ). A l tho ug h i nv i t ed t o d o so, K un kl erdi d n otfi l e are spon se . I n Sw ar thout , th e S u p r e m e C o u rt h e ldf e d e r a l habe as r e v ie w o f C a lif o rn ia p a r o le d e c is io n s is lim ite dto p r o c e du r a l du e p r o c e s s , n a m e lyw h e th e rth e s ta te pa r ol e appl i c a ntha d a n opportuni tyt o be he a r d a nd r e c e i ve d as t a t e m e ntof the r e a s o n s u n d e r ly in g th e d e n ia l o f p a r o le . I

d. a t 8 6 2 . Sw ar thout

p r o h ib its exam i nat i on w hether the C al i forni a s t at e c ou rt s app l i ed the “ som e e vi dence” s ta n d a r dc o rr e c tly . I

d. at86 2-63 . In thi s c as e, there has bee n n o sho w i ng that K unkl e rw a s de ni e d a n opportuni tyt o be he a r d a thi s pa r ol e he a r i ng orw a s not p r o v id e das ta te m e n t o f th e r e a s o n s f

o rh is p a r o le d e n ia l. A cc ordi ng l y, the pet i t i on for panel re hear i ng i s G R A N T E D . T he D ec em ber 27 , 20 07 order a ff

i rm i ng the di stri ctcourti s V A C A T E D . T he di stri ctcourtorder g ran t i n g K u n k l er’ s habe as co rp u s pe t i t i on i s R E V E R S E D . K unkl e r ’ s m ot i on f or further or m od i fi ed order t o speci fythe form of h a b ea s r e lie f is D E N I E D a s m o o t.