Tarkington V Cal Victim Compensation Bd Ca21

Key Facts

Issues

• The court assessed whether the Board's decision to deny compensation was supported by substantial evidence, including physical evidence (red-stained money, nylon stocking), witness credibility (Allen's contradictory accounts, Tarkington's prior conviction for credibility purposes), and the Board's evaluation of the administrative record. The court concluded the evidence met the 'clear and convincing' standard required by law.
• The court evaluated if the Board violated Penal Code section 4903 by disregarding binding factual findings from the 2017 habeas corpus decision. Appellants claimed the Board ignored conclusions that Tarkington's evidence was viable and that Detective Brown's testimony was exaggerated. The court held the Board's analysis was consistent with the habeas decision, noting the distinction between legal summaries and factual findings.
• The court addressed whether the California Victim Compensation Board applied the correct legal standard by requiring the Attorney General to prove Tarkington's guilt by clear and convincing evidence under Penal Code section 4900, as amended in 2022. Appellants argued the Board improperly shifted the burden to Tarkington, but the court affirmed the Board's adherence to the statutory requirement.

Holdings

• The court affirmed that the Board applied the correct burden of proof under Penal Code section 4900, requiring the Attorney General to establish the claimant's guilt by clear and convincing evidence. The Board's analysis properly weighed the evidence and did not shift the burden to Tarkington.
• The Board's decision was consistent with the 2017 habeas corpus ruling, as it accepted binding findings that the trial evidence against Tarkington was limited but did not contradict the habeas court's conclusions about the admissibility of evidence or credibility assessments.
• Substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion that the Attorney General met its burden to prove Tarkington committed the robbery. The Board reasonably weighed conflicting witness accounts, forensic evidence, and credibility determinations.

Remedies

• The court ordered that the parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
• The court affirmed the California Victim Compensation Board's decision to deny Canelia and LaMont Tarkington's application for compensation under Penal Code section 4900, following the dismissal of charges against LaMont Tarkington after his habeas corpus petition was granted.

Legal Principles

• The Board applied the correct burden of proof under Penal Code section 4900, requiring the Attorney General to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Tarkington committed the robbery. The court affirmed that the Board did not shift the burden to Tarkington, correctly evaluating the evidence in light of this standard.
• The court confirmed that the Board required the AG to meet the clear and convincing evidence standard established by the 2022 amendments to Penal Code section 4900. Substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion that this standard was satisfied.
• The Board accepted findings from the 2017 habeas corpus decision as binding under Penal Code section 4903(c), including the court's conclusion that Tarkington's trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The court affirmed the Board's compliance with this requirement.

Precedent Name

• Gonzales v. California Victim Compensation Bd.
• Tennison v. California Victim Compensation & Government Claims Board
• Holmes v. California Victim Comp. & Government Claims Bd.
• People v. Mendoza

Cited Statute

• California Penal Code
• California Evidence Code
• California Code of Civil Procedure

Judge Name

• Mitchell Beckloff
• ROTHSCHILD, P. J.
• Stephen I. Goorvitch
• WEINGART, J.
• M. KIM, J.

Passage Text

• Substantial evidence supports the Board's conclusion that the AG met this burden. We also reject Tarkington's assertion that the Board failed to accept findings from the habeas proceedings that section 4903 deems binding.
• The Board expressly recognized the AG had the burden of proof, and the Board's analysis reflects its application of this burden. After evaluating the AG's evidence and concluding it supported Tarkington's guilt, the Board assessed whether Tarkington had presented evidence warranting a contrary conclusion. The Board decided he had not.
• The Board's decision states it is accepting these conclusions. Specifically, the decision identifies as binding the habeas court's conclusions that: (1) '[t]he only item found on [Tarkington] that tied him to the robbery was $200 in cash'; (2) 'the shirt and towel were not merely cumulative pieces of evidence that tied Tarkington to the robbery without viable explanation as to how they came into his possession; they were the only items that do so'; (3) 'no DNA or other physical evidence put Tarkington either in the bank or getaway car; that the DNA of two other people—but not Tarkington—were found on the nylon stocking containing the $59 in coins found in the back of his car'; (4) 'the case against Tarkington has been reduced to the false name he gave to law enforcement when pulled over—unsurprising given he was still on federal supervised release—and the alleged similarities between Tarkington's height, build, and skin color to one of the robbers'; (5) 'Tarkington has a dark complexion, is about 5 feet 11 inches tall, does not have a medium build, weighing about 200 pounds in late 2005'; and (6) 'Detective Brown's testimony was 'greatly exaggerated.'