Antonio Chávez was wrongfully arrested and convicted since 1996. He was only 22 years old at the time. (He and his friend were accused of a crime they had no knowledge or part of.) He has served nearly 27 years being innocent and has maintained his innocence, most importantly he is backed by the victim’s next of kin and surviving victim, however, the Parole Board denied him parole despite hearing statements of his innocence. Systemic racism within the prison system is meant to unjustly incarcerate prisoners longer (i.e. harsh and unusual punishment). The Board and CDCR have a responsibility to act on this new information and look into his innocence but instead we have not heard back and it’s passed their general rule 120 days of making their final decision (update: Antonio’s appeal was denied through CDCR & the courts). [UPDATE 8/9/23, Antonio’s appeal dated May 14, 2021 was denied in 2022.]

Furthermore, we ask that Antonio and his codefendant’s, Jose Beltran, innocence be looked into and that their wrongful conviction is exonerated. CDCR, the District Attorney (DA), and Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) can refer their case for recall and sentencing to the court. Presently, the DA’s Conviction Integrity Unit (CIU) are reviewing their case & have an amazing prosecutor looking into it. We need everyone’s support to encourage CDCR, the Govenor, & LAPD Chief Moore to do right by Antonio & Jose, & ensure they collaboratively work with the CIU towards proving their innocence. The Governor of California also has great bearing in this matter and can refer their case for a thorough review & exonerate their wrongful conviction. Exonerate these men, Antonio and Jose Beltran are innocent! [UPDATE 8/9/23, their case with the CIU is in line for the final stages of investigation, however, the unit is understaffed and resources are scarce.]

Let's not forget the Attorney General, he can too help exonerate them by reviewing new materially exculpable evidence. We have 911 audio!!!! This is breaking. Antonio & Jose were convicted on false testimony & evidence. Corrupt detectives & prosecutor engaged in grave official misconduct. Audio single-handedly prove this.. Also, their attorneys were ineffective. There is new & existing evidence showing official grave misconduct and exculpating Antonio & Jose!!! 

Despite materially exculpable evidence, we are left in wait. This is an issue of systemic racism and inequality. An innocent man and his friend were racially and gang profiled by police, prosecution, and its “main witnesses” which resulted in a wrongful conviction. Those that cannot afford an attorney have a disadvantage and are further victimized in the judicial system. Please lead us to Justice. 

Parole Hearings are Biased. Those “old school” commissioners and practices need to be removed: It has been found that the Board  (BPH) relies on unreliable and invalid forensic Comprehensive Risk Assessments (CRA)  intended to keep prisoners incarcerated longer. This is a prevalent systemic issue and has gone unchecked. These assessments often need a diagnosis of a personality disorder (e.g., Antisocial Personality Disorder, ASPD) to warrant dangerousness and deny parole but such diagnosis are unsubstantiated and overstated. In the prison system, ASPD is synonymous to violence but it’s not factual. Much of the male prison population with determinate sentences (and lifers) are diagnosed with ASDP but the statistics on prison violence does not corroborate a direct correlation between ASPD and violence: ASPD diagnosis statistics are higher than actual prison violence. The Forensic Assessment Department (FAD) is responsible for these manipulative findings that exaggerate isolated and partial symptoms that may be attributable to ASPD, but do not necessarily meet the required criteria to warrant a true diagnosis per the DSM-5 American Psychiatric  Association (APA).

Moreover, FAD psychologists hyperfocus on areas no longer relevant or pose a threat such as past rule violations in which sufficient time has passed and recent rule violations that are non-violent and sporadic in order to claim inmates pose an ‘unreasonable risk of danger to society’ who are likely to violently reoffend in the future. Despite the often misapplied  “findings,” it is biasly accepted by BPH and CDCR and is used in a manner not in accordance with the American Psychological Association (APA); it is detrimental and a violation of prisoners’ civil rights. FAD, which is governed by APA, has a responsibility to adhere to its ethical standards: “Resolving Ethical Issues 1.01. Misuse of Psychologists’ Work. If psychologists learn of misuse or misrepresentation ..., they take reasonable steps to correct or minimize the misuse or misrepresentation.” The BPH CANNOT choose to dismiss certain aspects of the risk assessments, while still emphasizing on its high risk level. At this point it should be void and null entirely. These risk assessments aren’t meant to be interpreted as anyone’s own, nor dissected to fit anyone’s narrative as it proves harmful and is unreliable. 

These risk assessments are supposed to measure violent reoffending but don’t consider other facts that better explain in-prison rule violations such as: reasons due to adaptation, situational, isolated and or sociocultural and socioenvironmental factors that can be attributed to prison politics which is unwritten law known to CDCR and its subdivisions, but are disregarded. Risk assessments are set up to measure certain areas: Clinical and Historical Factors and Risk Management. Instruments used are HCR-20-V3 and PCL-R. Historical Factors consider a person's fixed history such as a prior criminal record, pre-conviction trauma and behaviors that already happened and cannot change or be contributed to Offender Change (i.e., rehabilitation). Clinical Factors include post-conviction behavior that is attributable to Offender Change and the prisoners’ present state of mind, insight, remorse, empathy and accepting responsibility of the life crime. However, per penal code 5011, (b) “The Board… shall not require, when setting parole dates, an admission of guilt to any crime for which an inmate was committed.” This proves to be confusing and contradicting. If a person cannot give insight to a commitment offense, this automatically and inaccurately measures them high on the Clinical Risk Assessment. There is no alternative instrument nor can the instrument be modified to consider one’s innocence. In essence, when someone maintains their innocence or reserves their right not to speak on their commitment offense, they are labeled dangerous, automatically rebuked, demeaned and demoralized. Antonio’s case is a prime example, whereby even the victim’s next of kin, cousin and a surviving victim spoke of his innocence. Yet, the CRA that holds no insight and or collaborative information as to his innocence, is held to greater weight than surviving victims and next of kins.

Further, neither does the FAD, BPH nor the CDCR consider the innocence of a prisoner during the appeals process, instead, by design, they (and the CRA) hold their innocence against them. Since risk assessments do not have a criteria to measure innocence, results indicate Other Antisocial Behaviors or a diagnosis of ASPD. As mentioned, ASPD in respects to this field is synonymous to violent reoffending although studies show otherwise and it’s diagnosis is used to determine a person a danger to society and it fails to support the misapplied high level of risk: ASPD is known to remit as a person gets older, more specifically in their 40’s, and if they have been diagnosed with Conduct Disorder (CD) Adolescent-type as in Antonio’s case, they are less likely to develop ASPD in adulthood. The CDCR is structured to work against inmates. Their own CRAs don’t make sense: they emphasize insufficient factors  to give the illusion of violent recidivism. Lifers are the most affected by these unethical, immoral, prejudiced, biased and unsubstantiated labels that statistics disprove. Antonio is innocent. We repeat, Exonerate him! 

BPH often dismisses relevant laws that correspond to prisoners at their hearing. An example specific to this petition is SB 261 which takes into consideration the lack of brain development/maturity in people 23 years and under at the time of the offense: “Section 3051, prior to attaining 23 years of age, the board, in reviewing a prisoner’s suitability for parole pursuant to Section 3041.5, shall give great weight to the diminished culpability of juveniles as compared to adults (f) (1) In assessing growth and maturity, psychological evaluations and risk assessment instruments, if used by the board…, shall take into consideration the diminished culpability of juveniles as compared to that of adults, the hallmark features of youth, and any subsequent growth and increased maturity of the individual. (2) Family members, friends… faith leaders, and representatives from community-based organizations with knowledge about the individual before the crime or their growth and maturity since the time of the crime may submit statements for review by the board.” This was not the case for Antonio Chavez despite receiving an abundance of support from family, friends, faith leaders and community based organizations surpassing 40 letters. The BPH, FAD-CRA did not review nor consider this which is a violation of a prisoner’s right under SB 261. The CRA did not seek collateral evidence to substantiate its findings that were prejudiced and based on presuppositions. Such unethical and prejudiced behavior of all parties involved in the parole process should be stopped and called into legal questioning.  The FAD must follow the APA Ethics Code in that:  “1.02 Conflicts Between Ethics and Law, Regulations, or Other Governing Legal Authority. If psychologists’ ethical responsibilities conflict with law, regulations, or other governing legal authority, psychologists clarify the nature of the conflict, make known their commitment.., and take reasonable steps to resolve the conflict consistent with the General Principles and Ethical Standards of the Ethics Code. Under no circumstances may this standard be used to justify or defend violating human rights.”

Both the forensic psychologist/CRA and BPH made prejudiced comments against Antonio that the BPH itself said they could not use against him because the Confidential Information (see Ashker v. Governor of California) was not validated by subsequent corroborating information. Yet it was used against him in his CRA and hearing. He was gang profiled and accused of being a Sureño, this is racial profiling as Southern Hispanics are lumped into this term. The CDCR and it’s entities defamed his character!  

The broken and prejudiced system needs to be held responsible from the start of the Parole process to the end (and even before: the CDCR has a responsibility and power to look into certain cases and forward for recall and resentencing at any point). Everyone involved should be held responsible for their individual and contributing  unethical influences, negligence/failure of holding each other responsible is conducive to oppressive and prejudiced outcomes against inmates. 

Based on the findings at the Parole Hearing Antonio should  have been paroled and or referred for recall and resentencing/exonerated. He’s innocent. 

In this case:

1) The decision was not supported by the reasons or facts as stated.

2) “Facts” considered were incomplete/uncorroborated.

3) Areas of concern are not associated with violent-reoffending.

4) Serious consequences of incorrect risk decisions. 

5)  It was based on erroneous information (CRA, and the actual facts justify a different decision).

6) Reasons to believe the panel did not follow the correct deciding procedure; a different decision would have resulted...

7) Significant relevant information was in existence but not known to the parole hearing panel at the time of the hearing (Rockwood Outsiders association not  upheld in court; amount of community support and long term interpersonal relationships; CRA errors).

8) Information presented via the CRA and two-panel suggests the presence of merely a statutory element of ‘unsuitability' but it doesn’t satisfy all essential elements to determine unsuitability.