California Victim Compensation Board

Meeting Minutes

July 18, 2024, Board Meeting

The California Victim Compensation Board (Board) convened its meeting in open session upon the call of the Chair, Gabriel Ravel, General Counsel of the Government Operations Agency, acting for, and in the absence of Amy Tong, Secretary of the Government Operations Agency, at 400 R Street, Room 330, Sacramento, California, on Wednesday, July 18, 2024, at 10:03 a.m. Also, present was Member Evan Johnson, acting for, and in the absence of, Malia Cohen, Controller. Appearing via Zoom was Member Diana Becton, District Attorney.

Executive Officer Lynda Gledhill, and Chief Counsel Kim Gauthier attended in person at 400 R Street, Sacramento, California. Board Liaison, Andrea Burrell, was also present and recorded the meeting.

Item 1. Approval of the Minutes of the May 16, 2024, Board Meeting

Member Johnson moved approval of the Minutes for the May 16, 2024, Board Meeting. The motion was seconded by Member Becton. By a unanimous vote of the Board, the motion passed.

Item 2. Public Comment

The Board opened the meeting for public comment and Ms. Burrell reminded everyone that, consistent with the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, items not on the agenda may not be discussed at this time but may be put on a future agenda. (Gov. Code, § 11125.7.) 

Margaret Petros appeared via Zoom requesting that the Board direct staff to not separate the meeting’s agenda items, specifically the closed session agenda items, because it makes no sense to separate those items. This is one meeting, one Board. Ms. Petros stated that it is confusing and misleading. She described how when you go to the home page, you go to CalVCB about meetings, then notice of meetings, and meeting materials, where everything should be listed, but this document excludes the closed session items and all the claim numbers being decided by the Board during closed session. CalVCB has been separating that and she complained about it over a year ago. Ms. Petros has personally experienced a situation where she reviewed the notice and meeting materials and was also present at the meeting via Zoom but was not aware that one of her victim’s claims where she is the authorized representative was on the agenda for a denial recommendation and was decided by the Board members in closed session. She connected with staff to express her concerns and that’s when she figured out that the items were separated. Ms. Petros believed it was going to be corrected but it still has not, and she objects to this approach She considers this to be a serious violation, and it is her opinion that this misleads the public. The public has a right to be clear on these items.

Finally, Ms. Petros stated that her other concern with closed session is that 59 claims are recommended for denial. The agenda was posted ten days ago on July 8, but as the Board must know on June 21, the judge ruled in MAM’s favor and granted the writ of mandate against CalVCB that the denials based on the written record are not lawful. Ms. Petros explained stated that victims have a right to have an in-person hearing and that the code of regulations 647.20.1 is faulty and is inconsistent with the law. She expressed her concern that there are still 59 claims agendized to be denied; however, she acknowledged that the Board could deny these claims because the decision has not been signed yet by the judge in the writ litigation. She asked that the Board respect that decision and put the 59 cases on hold today.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Petros for her comments and noted that the members were scheduled to discuss the writ proceeding in closed session.

Item 3. Executive Officer Statement

Executive Officer Gledhill updated the Board on a few items:

To start, Ms. Gledhill stated the Governor signed the state budget in June and it does maintain the administrative cuts previewed in May. CalVCB is still working with the Government Operations Agency and the Department of Finance to better understand how these proposed cuts, both to currently vacant positions and CalVCB’s operating budget will impact CalVCB. The administration has already been notified that CalVCB will be unable to absorb both of these cuts and maintain current operations. Ms. Gledhill expects these conversations will continue throughout the fall and she will keep the Board updated.

In May, Ms. Gledhill informed the Board that although the Safe Neighborhood and Schools Fund had increased, there was language in the May Revise about not expending one-time funds that met certain criteria. The $2.2 million in one-time Trauma Recovery Center (TRC) funding allocated in the Budget Act of 2022 met this criterion. The cut would result in CalVCB needing to reduce TRC grants by more than $1.5 million or 12 percent. Since the Board meeting in May, CalVCB requested and received an exemption from the administration and was approved to use the one-time general fund dollars to fund the TRCs at the level approved by the Board at the March meeting. CalVCB appreciates the Department of Finance working with us on this as CalVCB was concerned with the impact that funding reductions would have on TRC grantees and the victims they serve. The grants for the nine Board-approved TRCs were completed and effective July 1, 2024.

Ms. Gledhill reminded the Board that CalVCB contracts with Joint Powers (JP) offices across the state that process applications and bills. These offices are operated by 17 counties throughout the state as well as a location in the City of Los Angeles. CalVCB receives a local assistance line item in the budget, and the funding is distributed to local governments to perform the processing work as outlined in a three-year contract. Since the last meeting, CalVCB has confirmed that San Bernardino County will not be renewing its contract. Thus, CalVCB now has a contract with 16 local agencies, which went into effect this month.

The funding that was historically allocated to the San Bernardino office will be re-distributed to other local offices following an assessment of their current funding and staffing. CalVCB is aware that certain JP offices are underfunded based on the amount of staff they have dedicated to the work they do for CalVCB, however, the budget line item is static so there are not many opportunities to increase the money in the contracts.

To maintain a seamless process without impacting victims, the claims processing work that the San Bernardino office performed has been routed to headquarters. Headquarters is either processing the claims or redistributing them to other JP offices.

Ms. Gledhill updated the Board regarding the Forced or Involuntarily Sterilization Compensation Program (FISCP). CalVCB received updates from its government partners regarding memorial markers. Many memorial markers are installed at California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, State Hospitals, and Department of Developmental Services. The memorials range from benches to small gazebos to artwork.

CalVCB has also closed out the contract with Alliance for a Better Community (ABC) that was initiated as required by the Budget Act of 2021. The $300,000 contract required ABC to conduct outreach to survivors of forced or involuntary sterilization at the previously named Los Angeles County Hospital, currently named Los Angeles County and USC Medical Center. The study explored the lived experiences of victims and their families, identified potential barriers to identifying victims, and examined the context of cases of coerced sterilization

After extensive outreach in the Los Angeles region, ABC ultimately interviewed ten self-identified victims. They found that most women were sterilized via tubal ligation as part of a C-section and only one woman had retained relevant medical records. They all recounted the many ways that forced sterilization negatively impacted their physical and mental health, as well as their personal relationships. CalVCB has had ongoing communication with ABC, who will publish the final report in the next few weeks.

Ms. Gledhill continued noting CalVCB is in the middle of developing a four-year strategic plan that will guide the organization from 2025 through 2028. In addition to surveying stakeholders for input about CalVCB’s areas of excellence and opportunities for improvement and surveying staff, Ms. Gledhill has also started having one-on-one meetings with stakeholder groups to obtain additional feedback. The conversations have been very productive in terms of reiterating the many ways CalVCB’s services help people rebuild their lives as well as identifying opportunities for improved outreach, communications, and efficiencies.

Finally, Ms. Gledhill took a moment to update the Board of the recent changes to the executive team. Executive Officer Vincent Walker is retiring and CalVCB welcomed Deputy Executive Officer Jennifer Rocco and Chief Information Officer Leo Aguiano.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Gledhill for the updates and the great news about the TRC funding. He also thanked Mr. Walker for his service and welcomed Ms. Rocco and Mr. Aguiano.

Member Johnson stated he really appreciated the willingness to push to maintain that funding (TRC), as he knows how critical it is.

Item 4. Legislative Update

The Legislative Update was presented by Deputy Executive Officer Katie Cardenas.

Ms. Cardenas stated that at the May meeting, the Senate and the Assembly Appropriations Committees were meeting to hear bills on the Suspense File. Ms. Cardenas reported that several of the bills CalVCB had been following were held in committee and will not move forward, including AB 2307 by Assembly Member Davis and SB 1430 by Senator Glazer.

Finally, Ms. Cardenas reported on the bills that did move forward, which are AB 2979 by Assembly Member Fong that was signed by the Governor on July 15 and took immediate effect. That bill clarifies that Victim Compensation and Good Samaritan payments received from CalVCB are excluded from the definition of gross income under the Revenue and Taxation Code. Also, AB 1186 by Assembly Member Bonta, which had been on the inactive file since 2023, was brought back and significantly amended. This bill would provide that restitution fines against both adult and juvenile offenders would be deemed uncollectible ten years after imposition. It would also remove authority for the imposition of certain mandatory restitution fines against juvenile offenders. The bill is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 5.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Cardenas for the updates.

Item 5. Contract Update

The Contract Update was presented by Deputy Executive Officer Shawn Ramirez.

Ms. Ramirez stated that the Contract Report consisted of administrative amendments to the Criminal Restitution Compact (CRC) contracts, Joint Powers agreements for the term of July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2027, and standard operational contracts. She noted all items are informational and do not require Board action.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Ramirez for the update.

Margaret Petros commented that she took a quick look at the budget, and she is seeing some disparities between the Joint Powers in different offices. She wants to bring attention to the Board members and the public and stated that really close attention needs to be paid to the performance and the number of claims or funds that are being brought to victims in the individual counties. The example she noted were Santa Clara County, which is her jurisdiction, is getting $3.399 million through its Joint Power contract, compared to the amount of money that was paid out to victims in Santa Clara County last fiscal year 2022-23, which was only about $800 thousand dollars. She continued, stating that if we were to just not have processing, close our eyes and pay victims, we would be paying them $5 million without administrative costs and be able to help a lot more victims. In her opinion, CalVCB needs to look closely and pay attention to the productivity and how much help is coming to victims.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Petros for her comment.

Item 6. Request for Authority to Begin Rulemaking Process for Amendments to the California Code of Regulations (Title 2, §§ 640, et seq.)

The Request for Authority to Begin Rulemaking Process for Amendments to the California Code of Regulations (Title 2, §§ 640, et seq.), was presented by Senior Attorney Laura Simpton.

Ms. Simpton requested authorization to begin the rulemaking process to amend the regulations governing Penal Code section 4900 (PC 4900) claims as well as the corresponding claim form. Ms. Simpton explained the regulations and claim form were last updated in 2022. Since then, several statutory provisions for processing PC 4900 claims were amended by Senate Bill 78, effective January 2024. As a result, some aspects of the current regulations and claim form are outdated or inconsistent with current law. CalVCB experienced a significant increase in the number of claims received. Received claims rose by 139 percent between 2021 and 2023, yet the number of approved claims increased by just 57 percent, while the number of rejected or denied claims increased by 144 percent.

Ms. Simpton informed the Board that the proposed amendments to the regulations and updated claim form will ensure consistency with current law, provide additional clarity for processing claims and determining eligibility, and include non-substantive changes that render the regulations and claim form easier to understand, especially for claimants who are not represented by an attorney. When drafting the proposed regulations, CalVCB reached out to the various stakeholders including the Attorney General and Innocence Project for their informal feedback. Only the Office of the Attorney General responded with one suggested edit, which has been incorporated into the draft.

If the Board approves staff’s request, the draft regulations and related documents will be submitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) in order to commence the official rulemaking process. As part of that process, all stakeholders and the general public will have an opportunity to submit comments during a 45-day period. Any received comments will be carefully considered and, if warranted, may result in additional revisions. Those revisions, in turn, would trigger an additional comment period of either 15 days for minor changes or 45 days for major changes. No hearing is currently contemplated but one will be scheduled upon timely request for a date to be determined after the 45-day period concludes.

Once the comment period is complete and the language of the proposed regulations is settled, staff will return to the Board with a separate request to adopt the proposed regulations and authorize filing the record with the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). If granted, OAL will review the regulations and, if approved, file them with the Secretary of State.

Ms. Simpton concluded by stating for now, staff requests authorization to begin the rulemaking process.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Simpton and stated that he is very pleased that CalVCB reached out to the stakeholders for comments and suggestions.

Member Johnson moved to approve the Executive Officer to begin the rulemaking process for the amendments to the California Code of Regulations (Title 2, §§ 640, et seq.) and to execute and submit any required documents to the Office of Administrative Law. The motion was seconded by Member Becton. By a unanimous vote of the Board, the motion passed.

Item 7. Clayborne Dennis (Pen. Code, §§ 4900, et seq.)

The Penal Code section 4900 claim of Clayborne Dennis was presented by Chief Counsel, Kim Gauthier.

On July 23, 2021, Clayborne Dennis submitted an application to the California Victim Compensation Board as an erroneously convicted felon. That application was supplemented twice in August and September 2021, and it is based on his 1998 conviction for second degree murder. The claim seeks $1,566,040 for 11,186 days imprisonment. The Attorney General objected to the claim, arguing the evidence fails to prove Mr. Dennis’ innocence.

This claim is recommended for denial as Mr. Dennis has failed to meet his burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he is innocent of the challenged conviction under the law as it existed when the crime was committed as required by Penal Code section 4900, subdivision (a).

Mr. Dennis has been represented by attorney Jeffrey Mendelman throughout this claim and the Office of the Attorney General is represented by Deputy Attorney General Jessica Leal who is appearing before the Board today.

Chair Ravel requested we hear first from Mr. Mendelman.

Mr. Mendelman stated that the conviction date of 1998 is incorrect, it should be 1988, and he stated he assumed that the Board has read and considered all the documents that he submitted including his July 2 brief, so he will not go back through that. He asked, “What has the system done for Clayborne Dennis?” As a 16-year-old, the system ripped Mr. Dennis from his mother and charged him with a crime and treated him as an adult for punching someone a single time. That’s the only competent evidence, and so he understands that the Hearing Officer who wasn’t present at the hearing went back through the record and pulled a bunch of what he would consider, “incompetent evidence to cobble together some sort of alternative theory that was never actually founded in anything competent to claim that we didn’t meet our burden of proof.” Mr. Mendelman continued that he thinks although he has been released because he was resentenced and the murder conviction was reversed and he was resentenced to assault by means likely to cause great bodily injury, it still is not really justice to rip a 16-year-old from his mother, throw him into prison for 34 years and then say, well you can go back on the street now.

Mr. Mendelman concluded by quoting Martin Luther King Jr., “The time is always right to do what is right,” and what is right in this instance is to compensate Mr. Dennis for sitting in prison for over three decades for punching somebody one time. He then thanked the Board.

Chair Ravel thanked Mr. Mendelman and confirmed Mr. Dennis was not present.

Ms. Leal asked that the Board adopt the Hearing Officer’s Proposed Decision. She argued that claimant has failed to carry his burden of innocence of murder in the second degree. The evidence shows that claimant set in motion the events that led to the victim’s death, that he was a key participant in the beating that left the victim motionless on the ground. Claimant then recruited other gang members and participated in the larger beating, and he lingered around as the victim lay naked and dead on the ground. Four witnesses gave statements consistent with these facts.

Ms. Leal continued noting claimant’s multiple statements over the years support these facts. Mr. Dennis has previously accepted full responsibility as the initiator of the fatal beating and as a person who brutally fought the victim with “everything within him.”  Claimant now minimizes his role in the beating in an attempt to receive compensation, but the record refutes that assertion. In his comments on the Proposed Decision, he oddly claims that his own statements before the parole board are not to be trusted because there was an attempt to gain a parole date. It does not help his innocence claim to say that he was willing to say whatever was necessary in order to obtain a significant benefit. Claimant undermined his own credibility, and it leaves open the possibility that his claim of innocence now is also an attempt to obtain another significant benefit.

Ms. Leal concluded stating ultimately, the state of the evidence is such that claimant cannot demonstrate his innocence.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Leal for appearing at the meeting.

Member Johnson moved to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Proposed Decision in the Penal Code section 4900 matter of Clayborne Dennis. The motion was seconded by Member Becton. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Board and the proposed decision was adopted.

Item 8. Jofama Coleman (Pen. Code, §§ 4900, et seq.)

The Penal Code section 4900 claim of Jofama Coleman was presented by Chief Counsel, Kim Gauthier.

On March 14, 2024, Jofama Coleman submitted an application to the California Victim Compensation Board as an erroneously convicted felon, which was supplemented April 29, 2024. The application is based on Mr. Coleman’s 2006 conviction for murder. The conviction was vacated in February 2024, pursuant to a grant of habeas corpus. Also in February 2024, the court granted the motion for a finding of factual innocence pursuant to Penal Code section 1485.55.

As mandated by the court order and pursuant to Penal Code section 1485.55, the Proposed Decision recommends compensation in the amount of $907,340, which represents $140 per day for each of the 6,481 days Mr. Coleman was wrongfully imprisoned.

Mr. Coleman has been represented by attorney Ellen Eggers throughout these proceedings and the Office of the Attorney General is represented by Deputy Attorney General Jessica Leal who is appearing before the Board today.

Chair Ravel requested we hear first from Ms. Eggers.

Ms. Eggers wanted to thank the Board, and she feels this is a very just outcome. She added that she wanted to give a special thanks to Deputy Attorney General Jessica Leal. Ms. Eggers acknowledged that Ms. Leal went above and beyond the call of duty in this case by helping Ms. Egger’s office in getting files that they had difficulty getting. Ms. Eggers concluded by stating Mr. Coleman would like to address the Board.

Mr. Coleman stated that his situation either makes you better or bitter and he feels he became better because of people like Ms. Leal. He didn’t let his situation cause him to become bitter because of his daughter. While incarcerated, he educated himself and gained three associates degrees. Although he went through some very tough times, he feels he triumphed because of processes like the Board attempting to right the wrongs. He thanked the Board.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Eggers and Mr. Coleman.

Chair Ravel requested to hear next from Ms. Leal.

Ms. Leal stated the Attorney General’s Office was not involved in the factual innocence litigation in the Superior Court aside from receiving notice from the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office and agreeing that a factual innocence concession was due in this case. The Attorney General was only involved in litigating the issue of injury. Ms. Leal thanked Ms. Eggers for her patience, civility, and her outstanding advocacy for her client Mr. Coleman. The right compensation has been agreed on and she asked the Board to adopt the Proposed Decision.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Leal for appearing at the meeting.

Member Johnson moved to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Proposed Decision in the Penal Code section 4900 matter of Jofama Coleman. The motion was seconded by Member Becton. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Board and the proposed decision was adopted.

Item 9. Truman Simon (Pen. Code, §§ 4900, et seq.)

The Penal Code section 4900 claim of Truman Simon was presented by Chief Counsel, Kim Gauthier.

On March 23, 2022, Truman Simon submitted an application to the California Victim Compensation Board as an erroneously convicted felon. The application is based on Mr. Simon’s 2018 convictions as an aider and abettor to assault with a firearm and criminal threats. The claim seeks $154,560 for 1,104 days imprisonment. The Attorney General objected to the claim, arguing the evidence fails to prove Mr. Simon’s innocence. The Board first considered this claim at its meeting in March 2024 and remanded the matter back to the Hearing Officer to address certain issues. As explained in detail in the Proposed Decision on Remand, the claim is recommended for denial as Mr. Simon has failed to meet his burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he is innocent of the challenged convictions as required by Penal Code section 4900, subdivision (a).

Mr. Simon represented himself throughout these proceedings and the Office of the Attorney General is represented by Deputy Attorney General Jessica Leal who is appearing before the Board today.

Chair Ravel confirmed that Mr. Simon was not present.

Chair Ravel requested to hear next from Ms. Leal.

Ms. Leal asked that the Board adopt the revised Proposed Decision noting it is worth emphasizing that the Appellate Court’s decision and comments regarding the weight of the evidence are not binding upon this Board and the Board can and should make its own findings based on the evidence before it. A court’s invalidation of a conviction due to insufficiency of the evidence is not equivalent to a finding of factual innocence. This is why a person acquitted of murder for instance may still be held civilly liable for wrongful death. Evidence that is not enough to establish guilt by the higher standard can still establish liability by a lower standard.

Ms. Leal continued, stating it is not the Attorney General’s burden to establish guilt in this case. While the Appellate Court stated that there was no evidence that claimant shared the gunman’s criminal purpose and that there was no evidence that he intended to aid and abet any crimes, those statements by the court were made in light of the standard of review in that proceeding which was a sufficiency of the evidence standard, that is reasonably credible in a solid value from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not the standard here and it is not the Attorney General’s burden to carry.

Ms. Leal reminded the Board it does not have to accept that those characterizations by the court, which were again made in light of the applicable standard of review. The Board can credit the reasonable inferences to be made from the circumstantial evidence that the court of appeal did not think met the burden there, as there is a lower standard at play here, which must be met by claimant. The question before the Board is whether claimant has proven his innocence by a preponderance of the evidence. The evidence shows that claimant and two others engaged in a bar fight where claimant’s cousin was arrested. About an hour later, claimant and those same two others knocked on the victim’s door asking about said bar fight, that the three men stood in a semicircle at the door with the one in the middle pointing a gun at the victim and the claimant was the most vocal of the three. Although the existence of this evidence curtails claimant’s innocence, it is the absence of evidence of actual innocence that foreclosed the claimant’s claim. The claimant did not submit any evidence to prove that he did not share the gunman’s purpose or that he did not intend to aid and abet the assault or the criminal threats. When the Board remanded this case to the Hearing Officer, the claimant took no action still. Notably claimant is not present today because he is in prison pursuant to his conviction for criminal threats.

The Board has previously characterized this case as a close case, but as a second District Appellate Court stated in its most recently published decision regarding section 4900 cases, where the claimant bears the preponderance of the evidence burden, and the case would be Gonzalez v. California Victim Compensation Board, that in the case where the evidence is in equipoise that tie must be resolved against the inmate as the party assigned the burden and against relief. As such, even if this is a case that can be considered a tie, it must be resolved against claimant.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Leal for appearing at the meeting.

Member Johnson moved to adopt the Hearing Officer’s proposed decision in the Penal Code section 4900 matter of Truman Simon. The motion was seconded by Member Becton. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Board and the proposed decision was adopted.

Item 10. Abraham Villalobos (Pen. Code, §§ 4900, et seq.)

The Penal Code section 4900 claim of Abraham Villalobos was presented by Chief Counsel, Kim Gauthier.

On May 6, 2024, Abraham Villalobos submitted an application to the California Victim Compensation Board as an erroneously convicted felon. The application is based on Mr. Villalobos’ 2001 conviction for second degree murder, with enhancement for committing the crime for the benefit of a criminal street gang. Those convictions were vacated in March 2024 pursuant to a grant of habeas corpus. Also in March of 2024, the court granted the motion for a finding of factual innocence pursuant to Penal Code section 1485.55.

As mandated by the court order and pursuant to Penal Code section 1485.55, the Proposed Decision recommends compensation in the amount of $788,060, which represents $140 per day for the 5,629 days Mr. Villalobos was wrongfully imprisoned.

Mr. Villalobos has been represented by Joseph Trigilio throughout these proceedings and the Office of the Attorney General is represented by Deputy Attorney General Kathryn Althizer who is appearing before the Board today.

Chair Ravel requested we hear first from Mr. Trigilio.

Mr. Trigilio explained that Mr. Villalobos was deported to Mexico as the result of this wrongful conviction; however, on his behalf, Mr. Trigilio would like to express deep gratitude to the Board and to Deputy General Kathryn Althizer. They appreciate the fact that the State of California and the Board acknowledges Mr. Villalobos’ innocence, and it brings him some measure of justice.

Chair Ravel thanked Mr. Trigilio for appearing at the meeting.

Chair Ravel requested to hear next from Ms. Althizer.

Ms. Althizer stated the Attorney General’s Office was not involved in the factual innocence litigation other than receiving notice from the District Attorney’s Office and agreeing that factual innocence was warranted in this case. The parties agree on the amount of compensation, and she requested the Board adopt the Proposed Decision.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Althizer for appearing at the meeting.

Member Johnson moved to adopt the Hearing Officer’s proposed decision in the Penal Code section 4900 matter of Abraham Villalobos. The motion was seconded by Member Becton. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Board and the proposed decision was adopted.

Item 11. Ronald Velasquez Code, §§ 4900, et seq.)

The Penal Code section 4900 claim of Ronald Velasquez was presented by Chief Counsel, Kim Gauthier.

On May 7, 2024, Ronald Velasquez submitted an application to the California Victim Compensation Board as an erroneously convicted felon. The application is based on Mr. Velasquez 2001 conviction for first degree murder, with enhancements for the personal use of a firearm and committing the crime for the benefit of a criminal street gang. Those convictions were vacated in March 2024 pursuant to a grant of habeas corpus. Also in March of 2024, the court granted the motion for a finding of factual innocence pursuant to Penal Code section 1485.55.

As mandated by the court order and pursuant to Penal Code section 1485.55, the Proposed Decision recommends compensation in the amount of $1,202,180, which represents $140 per day for the 8,587 days Mr. Velasquez was wrongfully imprisoned.

Mr. Velasquez has been represented by John Hanusz throughout these proceedings and the Office of the Attorney General is represented by Deputy Attorney General Kathryn Althizer who is appearing before the Board today.

Chair Ravel requested we hear first from Mr. Hanusz.

Mr. Hanusz thanked the Board and Ms. Althizer for the consideration of Mr. Velasquez’s claim. He stated no amount of money can make Mr. Velasquez whole after being incarcerated for nearly 24 years for a crime he did not commit, but it will assist him in the process of rebuilding his life. Mr. Hanusz concluded by stating Mr. Velasquez would like to address the Board.

Mr. Velasquez thanked the Board.

Chair Ravel thanked Mr. Hanusz and Mr. Velasquez for appearing at the meeting.

Chair Ravel requested to hear next from Ms. Althizer.

Ms. Althizer stated the Attorney General’s Office was not involved in the factual innocence litigation other than receiving notice from the District Attorney’s Office and agreeing that factual innocence was warranted in this case. The parties agree on the amount of compensation, and she requested the Board adopt the Proposed Decision.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Althizer for appearing at the meeting.

Member Becton moved to adopt the Hearing Officer’s proposed decision in the Penal Code section 4900 matter of Ronald Velasquez. The motion was seconded by Member Johnson. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Board and the proposed decision was adopted.

Closed Session

The Board adjourned into Closed Session with the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Counsel at 10:59 a.m. pursuant to Government Code section 11126, subdivision (e) to discuss pending litigation and subsection (c)(3) to deliberate on proposed decision numbers 1 through 121 of the Victim Compensation Program.

Open Session

The Board reconvened in Open Session pursuant to Government Code section 11126, subdivisions (e) and (c)(3) at 11:20 a.m.

Member Johnson moved to approve items 1 through 121, excluding number 85 of the Victim Compensation Program. Chair Ravel seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Board and the proposed decisions were adopted.

Adjournment

Member Becton moved the adjournment of the July Board meeting. Member Johnson seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Board and the meeting was adjourned at 11:21 a.m.

Next Board Meeting

The next Board meeting is scheduled for Thursday, September 19, 2024.