Bamboozled Page 11
Joey fails to accept that the DA sees remorse in these men. Instead, he’ll give you an extended speech about how unfair it is that a good lawyer costs good money and how freedom shouldn’t have a price. While we can all more or less agree to that as a rough and moral concept, the particulars are where it gets nasty.
There are things that we may never know. Did Joey walk into the FBI office in San Diego and offer dirt on Top Rank, thinking that it would assist him in his parole hearings? There doesn’t seem to be any reason why the FBI would lie about this detail.
We may never know if the man Joey murdered was his crooked boxing manager withholding money from him, but his perspective differed notably from the stories that his friends told. While I’m sure that many reading this far can relate to what it’s like to be a painfully bored teenager longing for a more interesting life, it can never justify the crimes that Joey does admit to, even if you accept that his home life was less harmonious than it would appear on paper.
Like clock work, Joey receives numerous letters from attorneys vowing to have him paroled for five to ten thousand dollars. He was appointed the great Tracy Lum, Esquire who informed him that it was a good time to be released, but without his pals at the FBI or Top Rank, Joey no longer receives monthly checks of $5,000-10,000 and can’t change how he spent each of them on a month of partying.
On May 29, 2009 Joey was scheduled for another parole board hearing. He was 100% sure that this time he would be released and that “justice” would prevail.
As Joey walked into the parole board room that hot May day, he sensed that something was wrong. As Joey was seated he saw an elderly man with a gold shirt and green pants nudge down his glasses and state, “I don’t care who you were or who you are, this is gonna be a fair hearing.” Yeah, right, Joey thought, smiling, and said, “Good morning to you too sir.”
These are the transcripts from that May 2009 appeals court hearing:
1 living in society being the best person I could be. I
2 thought that you would say I’m going to go see the
3 governor’s aide and try to --
4 PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Let me tell you
5 this, sir --
6 INMATE TORREY: Sincerely, Sir, with all due
7 respect I mean this from my heart --
8 PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Let me tell you
9 this, you had a chance to talk.
10 INMATE TORREY: Yes, Sir, I know.
11 PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Now it’s my
12 chance.
13 INMATE TORREY: Yes, Sir.
14 PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. Now, let
15 me tell you this. It’s not about you. It’s about the
16 State of California. This is not about your ego and all
17 the things you’ve done. We recognize those things you’ve
18 done and we’ve read them. This is not about you. You
19 are no different than anybody else. You have complied
20 with what the rules are in CDCR. The rules say you have
21 to program. You don’t get any special privileges.
22 Nobody does.
23 INMATE TORREY: I’ve been the best I can be, Sir.
24 PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: But I’m saying
25 JOSEPH TORREY V-21699 DECISION PAGE 11 5/29/09
1 and here’s a problem for you, sir, that you need to work
2 on. Your start date is 2004. Okay. Now, here’s the
3 issue, should you receive a grant our charts allow us to
4 calculate the grant from when the lifetime starts. They,
5 have the life term starting in 1/23/2004. So now you do
6 a grant and post-conviction credits, you have no post-
7 conviction credits prior to 2 004. So in essence whenever
8 you do get a grant, and I’m sure you will get one if you
9 keep following the rules and the recommendations of the
10 Board, you get four months a year of post-conviction
11 credits. The Board does not go back and look at prior
12 post-conviction credits. We go from the date of when the
13 life term starts. So you got a 25-year commitment and
14 you get a grant there is no provisions right now to give
15 you post-conviction credits back to your original start
16 time. That’s a problem. You need to work on that. I
17 don’t know how you’re going to do it.
18 INMATE TORREY: As in my BPT report, I’m amazed
19 how saving this officer’s life and being free for two
20 years didn’t even come out of either one of you. I’m
21 amazed. I’m mind boggled how I suffer everyday getting
22 beaten and saving her life and it’s just goes in the
23 wind. I’m amazed how being free for two years -- I got
24 denied for two years, the same two years I was free and
If you’ve read this far, you know that Joey’s start date was long before 2004, but a “misunderstanding” like this is not something an inmate serving a life sentence can easily correct without an expensive attorney.
Joey’s state-appointed attorney explained to the commissioner that Joey had served his time and the only reason Joey was appearing in front of him was based on being eligible for parole.
Joey’s attorney stated: “I will leave a record for ‘our appeal,’ and I will get you free.” Joey again thought freedom would be right around the corner.
At first Joey says he was told that he would be released if he could obtain his credits for time served. So he wrote the parole board office in Sacramento explaining this error, but it remained uncorrected.
Joey says he maintained faith in Attorney Lum; she appeared to be in his corner. After about a week Joey got called to pickup his legal mail. It included the following letter from Tracy Lum, requesting $5,500:
Joseph Torrey, C.D.C # V-21699
Mule Creek State Prison, B10-150L
P.O. BOX 409040
Ione, California 95640-9040
Dear Mr. Torrey,
The decision by the Board of Parole Hearings in May of 2009 to deny your parole and to give you a two-year denial was absurd. The fact that you were not given credit for twenty-four plus years in custody is more than difficult to deal with. In spite of this, the fight is not over! The Judge who re-sentenced you to prison after your co-operation with law enforcement and successful parole period said, “Torrey get something in front of me if you are not paroled.” Mr. Torrey you need to file a Writ of Habeas Corpus and ask a Court of law to consider reviewing the injustices in your case.
My fees regarding Writs of Habeas Corpus include a flat fee of S5.500 for the three State Courts. This fee is non-refundable even if the case is won at the first level of Court. There is an additional flat fee of $5.500 if you want to proceed to the Federal Level of Courts if your case is unsuccessful in State Court; I’m willing to continue the fight on your behalf. Although there are no guarantees, I believe your case could be successful if brought to the Court’s attention and I hope you can raise the funds to move forward.
Until the final bell (as you would say),
Tracy Renee Lum
Attorney at Law
Unable to afford Tracy Lum, Joey thought his best chance would be Judge Espinoza’s Democrat and pro-inmate views, as well as his “letter of the law” approach.
In October 2010, Joey was called back to the legal mail desk. He felt that he had articulated the appeal properly and presented the facts. Joey took a deep breath and read:
The Court has read and considered the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed on August 1 8, 2009 by be Petitioner, the Return filed on July 14, 2010 by the Respondent, the supplemental letter filed on July 23, 2010 by the Respondent and the Traverse filed on September 14, 2010 by the Petitioner. The Petition challenges the Board of Parole Hearings’ (Board) May 2
9, 2009 finding that the Petitioner was not suitable for parole and denying him parole for two years. The Petition also challenges the Board’s calculation of the Petitioner’s time credits and minimum eligible parole date, as well as the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s failure to merge his prisoner files.
The Petitioner was initially received into the Department of Corrections on February 6, 1980 after he was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to a term of 25 years to life in prison. See Petition Exhibit E, pg. 4. He was then ordered released on January 9, 2002 after he prevailed on a writ of error corum nobis regarding his plea agreement. See Petition Exhibit D, pg. 1; Petition Exhibit E, pgs. 13-14; Petition Exhibit H. That order was reversed and the Petitioner was returned to custody on January 23, 2004. See Petition Exhibit F, pg. 1. During the 2009 suitability hearing, the Board indicated that the Petitioner would not be afforded credit for any time served prior to 2004 and that his minimum eligible parole date was January 23, 2004. The Board also found the Petitioner unsuitable for parole, denying him parole for two years. See 2009 Board Hearing Transcript, pgs. 72-88.
Subsequently, the Petitioner’s time credits and minimum eligible parole date were corrected to reflect he time he served prior to his release in 2002. He is now being given credit for serving his sentence between February 6, 1980 and January 4, 2002 and from January 23, 2004. See July 22, 2010 Letter From Respondent, exhibits A and C. Additionally, due to the Board’s errors, the Petitioner has been scheduled for a rehearing on November 19, 2010. See July 22, 2010 Letter From Respondent, Exhibit B.
The Court finds the Petition is moot, because the changes requested by the Petition have been made and he has been granted a new suitability hearing in light of those changes. Although Petitioner remains in custody, the only remedy available to him from his Petition is for the Court to grant it, directing the Board to reconsider Petitioner’s parole suitability in accordance with due process. See In re Rosenkrantz (2002) 29 Cal.4th 616, 658. Because a rehearing has already been scheduled, the Petition is moot. See In re Holmes, (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 483, 484. Should the Board determine that the Petitioner is not suitable for parole at the rehearing, he Petitioner may then contest the legitimacy of his continued confinement with a new Petition.
1
Minutes Entered
10-J2-10
County Clerk
Joey received a modification order and Philip Reisner, Chief of Legal Affairs, articulated the errors that he had corrected, but Joey needed the California Department of Corrections Legal Affairs to correct the mistake of giving him a new prison number and processing him as a new inmate.
Joey sent a complaint to the Judge in LA.
Mr. Reiser:
I do hope that this missive finds you well. Per your BPT 1135 dated July 14, 2010 (Miscellaneous Decisions, see attached), I was assured as I attended my Board of Prison Hearing on November 19, 2010, that your department’s continued blunders had been corrected. A blunder that caused me seven (7) years of unfair and prejudicial CDCR decisions and board hearings. But on November 19, 2010, I was astonished to be informed, prior to even entering into the BPH room by my attorney Jay Dyer, that I was being postponed pending a new “Psychological Report.”
How can I be denied my freedom again based on more blunders by your office? Shouldn’t your office have ordered, “Need New Psychological Report?” And if not, why wasn’t it? How can you, as legal counsel, continue to be harmfully misguiding and missinforming after signing your name to an order for a new hearing? I am amazed and would truly like to know how this can transpire after my previous hearing in 2008 was postponed for the same reason, and incompetence ran wild there as well. I was informed then that I did not need a new report, (see attached). And at my 2009 BPH hearing I was bamboozled as the only thing that Commissioner Anderson requested of me was to obtain thirty (30) years of earned credits via the court; but there was no mention of needing a “New Psychological Report”!!
I was sure that Judge Peter Espinoza, the Deputy Attorney General Jennifer L. Heinisch, and your office of “Legal Counsel” had this injustice corrected; and per due process, I would be entitled to a fair and impartial hearing. I can only hope that you have the class and professionalism to respond to this justified inquiry - This is my life.
Receiving a stack of legal letters in reply, Joey learned he was rescheduled for another parole board suitability hearing on February 3, 2011.
Joey took his medication with a hot cup of tea and looked out through his window that is the size of a carton of cigarettes. He saw a bird fly by and in his head it signified that he would accept whatever decisions came his way and would pursue peace and calm.
On April 7, 2011, while listening to Amy Winehouse’s Love is a Losing Game eleven times, Joey wrote a letter to commissioner Anderson which he made 50 copies. He began mailing a new copy to Anderson every few days.
Joey says for awhile every day felt closer to freedom.
But then a new man walked into Joey’s cell. He hit Joey’s right eye, then delivered a hook, then connected a head-butt. Joey claims he broke his old typewriter over the man’s head, ending the fight. While adrenaline was pumping and he was in survival mode, Joey says he stepped over the body, put a book in the hinge so they would not be locked in the cell together, dragged the man into the shower, kicked him in the teeth, and walked back to his cell with a cut and swollen face.
Joey was pissed to lose his typewriter but says he could not report the incident, for a write up of any infraction deemed to be his fault would result in another five year denial from the parole board.
Days later, Joey saw the same man in the yard talking to himself and eating grass. He found out a week later that the man ran in on him because Joey had refused to give him a cup of coffee and that others were eating Joey’s discarded trash before him.
Joey claims he did not remember this guy but does find it amazing how much other inmates clamor for his apple cores and rotting food. He does remember that once an inmate brought him a Sports Illustrated magazine he had tossed the day before, trying to exchange it for a cup of coffee.
Joey stood at the door, awaiting an interview with his counselors, wondering what they could want. Prison counselors can prevent a transfer or other such complications.
Joey entered and Counselor Bond, a rough, old school Marine freshly back from Iraq, stated that he would be writing Joey’s updated parole board report and was given permission to sit in on the parole board hearing. The counselor urged Joey to obtain “parole plans.”
The state needed to know that Joey had a residence and a job awaiting him. Joey explained that everyone in his family was dead and asked how he could obtain parole plans from inside. Who would send a letter stating they’d hire a convicted murderer serving life upon release? How do you find a new residence from a cell?
Joey called Katie Alsobrook, a new friend that he’d begun writing and talking to on the phone. She offered to help him in any way she could. Joey got back in touch with Sister Sean from the Catholic church in Los Angeles. He had sent her drawings to sell at church fundraisers and in return she offered to provide him with a place to stay if he could come up with $500.
The way the parole system works, a convict is released right back to the same locality from which they were living before arrest. So convicts with a background of gangs or drugs, or who are simply marked for death, are released into the same streets where the same elements are waiting for them, often into their old habits. When someone in trouble is released from prison back to their old neighborhood, there are almost always hundreds of people waiting, eager to kill them. If a released convict flees the county, they are marked as “fugitive on the run and parole violator.”
State officials endure enough bureaucracy that they rarely address this reality and their interests remain in parole violations and, as a result, creating a system of recidivism.
Joey fears that even if he found a way out, anyone who remembers him fr
om saving a prison guard or working with the FBI might see to making a quick end of him.
Four months later, Joey obtained the credits needed for parole. He wrote to Commissioner Anderson informing him of this but not did receive a response. Joey wrote a second time and to officers who had helped him over the years. Joey was informed by Counselor Bond that he needed to obtain some “Laudatory” chronos, or what we might call letters of support.
Re: Joey Torrey – #V21699
Dear Board of Parole Hearings Members,
My letter affirms Joey Torrey in his release back into the community. Mr. Torrey has served thirty-years in prison. He has used his incarcerated years well to grow into maturity, sensitivity, improve himself educationally and to expand his marketable skills. Mr. Torrey is an excellent artist with exceptional talent. Likewise, it would not be an exaggeration to say that the way in which he has used his talents to help at-risk youths is extraordinary. Joey’s involvement and presence in programs such as Boxers Against Drugs (BAD) and New Mexico’s Youth Development Inc (YDI) have given at risk youths an example of hope and change. Mr. Torrey’s dedication to helping others is remarkable.
Through the Partnership for Re-Entry Program, we support Mr. Torrey in housing at Francisco Home – 40th:
1224 W. 40th Place, Los Angeles, CA 90037.
Or at Francisco Home – Leighton:
1135 Leighton Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90037.
The first location houses eight persons and the second up to fourteen people. Both are transitional living homes for men that are close to public transportation and within a couple of blocks of each other. Residents are required to attend house meetings weekly, which include a Bible study and an AA meeting. If it is necessary, Francisco Homewill support Mr. Torrey in attending additional regular AA or NA meetings in the neighborhood. We ask for $100 deposit and $500 monthly rent, adjustable according to employment. We work with each individual to assure that financial resources are not a limitation for their housing. Availability of room is assured, but the location at either home will be determined at the time of release.