The Andrea Mims Story: "Rape of an Angel"
Transcript of Andreass July, 1998 Parole Hearing
In an effort to help those preparing for parole hearings in California, and to expose the political reality prospective parolees face, I am transcribing and posting the entire transcript of Andrea's parole hearing from July 1st, 1998. What is very evident is the vitriol and intentional falsehoods vocalized by Robert Dunn, and Presiding Commissioner, Carol Bentley, a former Republican Assemblywoman from San Luis Obispo, and political stooge of Former Governor Pete Wilson. Most outrageous is the board's reliance on a psychological profile prepared by Dr. Robert D. McDaniel, known for misogynism. This report was known by both the board and Robert Dunn to be fraudulent, yet both parties cited it heavily as an excuse for the outrageous 4-year wait Andrea must endure just for another hearing in the unlikely event our efforts in Federal Court fail. You may refer to this report as you read the transcripts of the hearing for reference.As you read the report, you will easily see that even Dr. McDaniel understood that the reason Andrea could not speak, either in his interview with her, or during the parole hearings was on sound attorney advice. You will understand why I can so openly accuse him of deliberate fraud in reaching a conclusion that could not possibly be sustained through any objective analysis. And, how I can so openly accuse the board and Robert Dunn of being a party to fraud should also be evident. But, if there is any doubt at all, please click on a copy of a letter our attorney John Duree wrote to the board in a request for a delay a year prior that should remove any doubt as to why Andrea could not discuss her case. It would have been sheer lunacy for Andrea to discuss her case in the presence of the man (Robert Dunn) who would have the option of re-trying her in the near future. Dunn's only motivation and reason to be at this hearing was to fish for information from Andrea to use against her. This will be evident in his attempt to remove her state-appointed attorney from the hearing. The treachery of this evil man knows no limits. Fortunately, he was unsuccessful in this. It should be noted that no member of Robert Sand's Family was present to oppose Andrea's release, nor did any member even write a letter. And, while we were not looking for a release date for Andrea, since they are never granted, we were hoping for a shorter wait period should our writ fail in court so that Andrea could openly discuss the circumstances of her case. Robert Dunn and Carol Bentley made sure this could not occur, but there may be something everyone can do to help change this. Please read the transcript and decide for yourself if this was a fair hearing. At the end, I will post addresses of people who should be written to.
This transcript will be posted unedited, but I will add commentary in red italics.
Sadly, with Gray Davis's recent betrayal of inmates' families, it appears the farcical nature of parole hearings will continue under the new Governor. Click here to read more.
Click on badge to view Board of Prison Terms Home Page
State of California
Board of Prison Terms
California Institute for Women
Frontera, CA. July 1, 1998
In the matter of the Life Term Parole Consideration
Hearing of: ANDREA MIMS.
PANEL PRESENT:
CAROL BENTLEY, Presiding Commissioner
M. ORTEGA, Commissioner
MIKE DOUGLAS, Deputy Commissioner
OTHERS PRESENT:
ANDREA MIMS, Inmate
MARY CATHERINE KRIBS, Attorney for Inmate
ROBERT DUNN, Deputy District Attorney
K. JONES, Officer
PROCEEDINGS
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER BENTLEY: This is a Subsequent Parole Consideration Hearing, although it is the first hearing that you've had. Your initial Hearing was put off for a year, for Andrea Mims, CDC number W-20080. The date of this hearing is July 1st, 1998. We're located at CIW. The legal status of the inmate, she was received on May 10, 1984 from the County of Riverside. The offense was murder first with use of a deadly weapon, Case Number ICR8134, count number one. Penal code sections violated 187 and 12022 (b). The terms are 26 to life. The minimum eligible parole date is 8/22/98. We have another stayed offense which is assault with a deadly weapon, Penal Code section violated 245. The same county but I believe, though, there is a different Case Number which I will look up and read into the record. We're tape recording the hearing so for purposes of the voice identification we're going to go around the room, giving our name, spelling our last name and indicating our purpose for being here. When we get to you, Ms. Mims, if you will also give us your CDC number. I'll start and we'll go to my right. I'm Carol Bentley, B-E-N-T-L-E-Y, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER ORTEGA: M. Ortega, O-R-T-E-G-A, Commissioner.
OFFICER JONES: Officer K. Jones, J-O-N-E-S. I'm here for security.
INMATE MIMS: Andrea Mims, W number 20080.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER BENTLEY: Spell your last name please.
INMATE MIMS: M-I-M-S.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER BENTLEY: Thank you.
ATTORNEY KRIBS: Mary Catherine Kribs, K-R-I-B-S, counsel for Ms. Mims.
SUPERVISING DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY DUNN: Robert Dunn, D-U-N-N, Supervising Deputy District Attorney for Riverside County.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: Mike Douglas, D-O-U-G-L-A-S, Deputy Commissioner.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER BENTLEY: Today we're going to be determining whether or not you're suitable for parole. We've taken into consideration all the information we've received from the public, reviewed your Central File, and the packet of materials we have before us. Today you'll have an opportunity to make any clarification in the record and also to submit any additional documents. Did you have any further documents you'd like to submit at this time?
INMATE MIMS: Yes, I have a number of support letters.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER BENTLEY: Okay, great, thank you. The state law and the Board of Prison Terms rules and regulations indicate we are to deny you a parole date if we feel you would be an unreasonable risk or danger to others. You'll receive a tentative decision today. It will become effective approximately 90 days from today. At that time, a final decision will be issued, a transcript will be sent to you, and you would have 90 days in which you could appeal. You have certain rights and I'll ask Ms. Kribs if those rights have been met so far?
ATTORNEY KRIBS: Yes.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER BENTLEY: You also have the right to an impartial panel. Do you have a concern with any of the panel members that are before you? Do you have any reason to think we can't be fair? You're going to have to speak up because we're tape recording.
INMATE MIMS: No, sorry.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER BENTLEY: I just passed around the documents checklist. Do you have those documents, Ms. Kribs?
ATTORNEY KRIBS: Yes, I do, thank you.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER BENTLEY: Mr. Dunn, do you have those documents?
SUPERVISING DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY DUNN: Yes, I do with the exception of the (inaudible) report.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER BENTLEY: Mr. Douglas, is there any confidential information going to be used?
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: No, Madam Chair.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER BENTLEY: Any preliminary objections?
ATTORNEY KRIBS: No.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER BENTLEY: Are you going to be testifying today? Are you going to answer our questions?
INMATE MIMS: I'm at this time restricted to say anything about my case due to pending litigation.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER BENTLEY: Okay.
INMATE MIMS: I would like to, but I'm unable to at this time.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER BENTLEY: All right, Ms. Mims, I want to ask you about that because you've been making that statement for a number of years. What's the pending litigation?
INMATE MIMS: There's a petition right now at the Supreme Court level. (Here, Andrea is in error. The Federal Writ of Habeas Corpus is actually in the US Central District Court of California, with a decision pending from Judge-Magistrate Arthur Nakazato.)
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER BENTLEY: And, who is your attorney?
INMATE MIMS: His name is John Duree.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER BENTLEY: Okay, and who's paying for this?
INMATE MIMS: My husband, Rick Jackson.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER BENTLEY: All right, and that's certainly your right not to speak about it. So, you won't be talking about anything to do with the life crime or, and does this apply to the assault with a deadly weapon?
INMATE MIMS: True.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER BENTLEY: All right, well, that is your right. But you will be testifying in other areas like your personal history and what you've been doing in prison?
INMATE MIMS: Well, I don't know what part of that leads up to the crime, so I would like to leave it out, for now, the social part of it before. I would just like to talk today about what I've done since I've come to prison.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER BENTLEY: Okay.
INMATE MIMS: And, what my plans are after I leave.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER BENTLEY: But you will then be doing some testifying, so I'm going to swear you in.
INMATE MIMS: Okay.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER BENTLEY: Would you raise your right hand.
INMATE MIMS: Sure.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER BENTLEY: Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
INMATE MIMS: Yes.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER BENTLEY: Okay, and we do expect you to be truthful.
INMATE MIMS: Yes.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER BENTLEY: Now, I'm going to take the Statement of Facts from the appellate decision and that's going to be pages two through six. It's said that:
"Robert Sand was a wealthy businessman. In 1979, he separated from his wife of thirty-five years and shortly thereafter became acquainted with the prisoner, a career call-girl. Against the advice of friends and associates, Sand married the prisoner in late 1980. Sand attempted to protect his financial interests and drafted a prenuptial agreement. The prisoner refused to sign. (This, of course, is untrue. Andrea never knew of a prenuptial. The board's statement of facts is taken from the appellate regurgitation of the perjured testimony of Marvin Chesebro, who claimed to have been Sand's attorney, but was actually the attorney of his ex-wife, Florence. Chesebro very early on did prepare a limited codicil, but Sand refused to accept it, and never told Andrea about it.) Sand also tried to establish a restricted trust fund. The prisoner, however, became very upset and Sand arranged a hundred and fifty thousand dollar unrestricted bequest in it's place. During the marriage, Sand purchased a twenty thousand dollar membership in a tennis club held in joint tenancy. The prisoner and Sand also became joint tenants in a three hundred and sixty thousand dollar Palm Springs Condominium. The prisoner contributed fifty thousand. The problems in their marriage quickly became apparent. Sand complained to his attorney the prisoner had a terrible temper and insulted him. He mentioned the prisoner often played tennis and "he felt abandoned." (Again, based on perjured testimony relating to conversations that never took place. The tennis membership was Sand's idea, so that he could enjoy the game of his youth through Andrea.) He contemplated divorce. (This is totally refuted on the "Wills" page.) The prisoner, too, complained about the marriage. She claimed she was not allowed to go out and have her own friends. The prisoner and Sand had "virtually no social life." The prisoner also told others she was afraid of Sand. She mentioned to family members that they should not be surprised if something happened to her and alerted them to Sand's sexual fantasies and perversions. The prisoner on one occasion contacted an acquaintance and asked him about the effects of Seconal and whether he had ever killed anyone. She told the acquaintance she had already tried to poison her husband. (This, of course, is the jailhouse witness "Richard," who is the subject of our Habeas Writ. Richard is the only witness to testify to premeditation, and can be proven to have lied, not only in Andrea's trial, but in one previous murder trial.) Three weeks before the murder she told a tennis friend, Sand would soon die from multiple sclerosis. (This refers to busy-body neighbor Betty Jo Crane, who twisted Andrea's distress at Sand's feigned illness. Sand did NOT have multiple sclerosis, though he often told Andrea that he did in order to frighten her.) At approximately 3:00 a.m. on May 15, 1981, condominium guards answered a call for medical help at Sand's condominium. The prisoner answered the door. She seemed upset, although not hysterical, and was crying lightly and biting her nails. The guards assisted her and brought her oxygen. She did not use the oxygen. The prisoner had no apparent injuries or blood on her clothing. (Untrue...she had a cut foot, blood all over her nightgown, and a massive head injury which would not be discovered for two days, do to Andrea's shock and inability to articulate her injuries to the medics.) She did not indicate she had been attacked by her husband. Sand's body was discovered and the police were called. Sand's body had rigor mortis indicating he had already been dead for two to four hours. He had sustained fifty-one wounds including bruises, scrapes, scratches, lacerations, and stabs. Four stab wounds to the heart cavity (Actually, two.) were the cause of death. The room in which Sand's body was recovered was splattered with blood. There was a pool of blood around the victim's body and on the bed. Traces of blood were found in the bathroom, kitchen, hall, and living room. A wooden board used to hit the victim's head and the murder weapon, a knife, had been washed clean of blood. The knife was found under the living room couch. The prisoner originally told investigators an intruder had killed her husband. She heard her husband call for help and as she entered the bedroom, the intruder pushed past her. The prisoner claimed she found her husband stabbed and beaten. He died with his head in her lap. The prisoner then claims to have called security. Later she admitted washing blood off herself, changing her clothes, cleaning the room, pulling the knife from the victim and washing blood off the knife and wooden board. Ten months after the murder, the prisoner was arrested. Two years after the murder, the prisoner underwent hypnosis at the suggestion of her defense attorney. Only after undergoing hypnosis did the prisoner "realize" she had killed her husband. At trial, the prisoner took the stand and asserted diminished capacity and self-defense. The prisoner presented psychiatric testimony characterizing her as "borderline personality." She claimed on the night of the murder the victim had forced her to participate in a sadistic sexual fantasy. When she entered the bedroom, Sand had grabbed her and told her two unknown men were going to sexually mutilate her. A struggle ensued and the prisoner stabbed her husband. At the time of his death, Sand was 69 years old, was basically confined to a wheelchair (by choice). while he could move with the aid of a walker, he was not very strong (he was massively strong, as many testified to) and had difficulty righting himself after a fall."
And that concludes the Statement of facts. And then I should indicate, then there was the other charge of, it was originally charged attempted murder and that was then reduced to assault with a deadly weapon and that was for the hammer attack on the husband that she married, that the inmate married after she was out on bail on this murder.
"Ms. Mims was born in 1941 in New Jersey, the second of three children. She had a fairly normal upbringing and her father apparently deserted the family when she was thirteen. At age fifteen she became pregnant, dropped out of school after the 10th grade, and married the baby's father. The marriage lasted three years. It ended in divorce due to the husband's abusive behavior. She had three children from that marriage. She raised two sons and placed the third up for adoption. (All of this refers to her forced marriage to the rapist, Wesley Denike. The third son put up for adoption was not from the marriage, but from another date rape after the divorce, written of in the first chapter of Andrea's story.) From age eighteen to sixteen she worked as a secretary, waitress, escrow worker, actress, dancer, and model. She seriously injured her back and neck while working as an actress and was unable to work for several years. After recovering from that injury, she started to work part time as a call girl in Los Angeles. She did this part time for about nine years. She also worked part time as a secretary and model and actress as jobs became available. She continued to raise her two children. She married the second time at age thirty after a very rocky, abusive relationship. That marriage ended in divorce after three days. She got married a third time to a friend's nephew so that he could qualify for a green card from the U.S. INS. There was no love between them, only friendship. Her fourth marriage lasted four days. This was another abusive relationship. Her fifth marriage was to Robert Sand, the victim. They had lived together less than a year in 1980 when they married. She was forty at this time. This marriage lasted about six months when he was killed. Her sixth marriage was in 1982 while out on bail and lasted about eight months and ended in divorce. Then she married her current husband while she was incarcerated. She claims that she's only been a social drinker of wine, experimented with marijuana socially and took pain medication for her back injury. She tried cocaine several times to be part of a social crowd, but did not enjoy it. On three occasions she attempted suicide by taking a mixture of alcohol and pain medication."
And now we're going to go to Mr. Douglas and he'll talk to you about what you've been doing in prison.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: Good morning, Ms. Mims.
INMATE MIMS: Good morning.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: Because this is truly your initial hearing, we're going to go back to when you came into CDC although this is technically a Subsequent Hearing. But you came into CDC on May 10, 1984 and your current classification score is zero. I reviewed your C-File so there's no magic to what I have here. You have no 115's since you've come into CDC and only two 128(a)'s, which are minor counseling chronologicals. Then I reviewed your C-File for different chronologicals and I note your last one on February 4, 1992 was your participation in Al Anon and AA. And then on January 5, 1998, Long Term Organization, long termers. Then December 10, 1997, you participated in the WAC Banquet. What did you do for them?
INMATE MIMS: That was just, I made flowers.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: You made flower arrangements and so on?
INMATE MIMS: Yes.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: Okay.
INMATE MIMS: Help in decorating.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: Okay, on August 14, 1996, you got a thank-you note for your participation in the Long Termers Organization again. July 16, 1996, you participated in a 12-week therapy program. Was that individual therapy?
INMATE MIMS: No.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: Was it group therapy?
INMATE MIMS: Yes.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: Small group therapy, okay. June 19, 1996, Long Termers Organization. You participated in a program for the visually impaired, right? They thanked you for participating in that.
INMATE MIMS: I don't remember what I did right now. I do a lot of things that I don't--
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: All right, January 18, 1996, you got a thank you from MARA, which was Mexican American Group, is it?
INMATE MIMS: I did a poster for them.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: You did a poster for them?
INMATE MIMS: I painted it for them.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: Okay, March 1, 1996, a Long Termers Organization appreciation comment again. September 8, 1995, thanks again from the Long Termers Organization. On June, 1995 you participated in a Children's Walk-A-Thon. And, April, 1995 you completed literacy, the tutor training.
INMATE MIMS: Yes.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: How many students did you teach?
INMATE MIMS: I had three.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: Did you? English as a second language?
INMATE MIMS: No, they spoke English, they just couldn't read.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: I see. Then on January, 1995 you got another thank you from the LTO for your participation. In 1994, you got another thank you from the LTO. On January, 1994, you got one for your participation in Alcoholics Anonymous. How long have you been in AA and Al Anon and NA and so forth.
INMATE MIMS: It's on Wednesday nights and when I wasn't working Wednesday nights, I was usually at the AA-NA.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: Are you familiar with the 12 Steps?
INMATE MIMS: Yes, I've done the 12 Steps once. I was getting ready to do it again but they're talking about sending me to Madera so I'm going to wait and see what happens there.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: Okay, do you know your 4th Step, Ms. Mims?
INMATE MIMS: I turned it all over to God.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: No, that's not your 4th Step, but that is a Step. The reason I've asked you is not to see if you've memorized them but to see if you--
INMATE MIMS: I know them generally, I know them in general what they are. I'm not, I don't know them word for word.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: Because we like to hear that you know them because we'd like to believe that you applied them philosophically to your life and if you don't know what they are, it's difficult to understand how you could apply them philosophically, that's why.
INMATE MIMS: In general, I know the basic programming. I've never sat down and tried to memorize the different steps.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: Okay, you got one December, 1993 for Long Termers Organization again. You got another one January 6, let's see, 1993, for NA and COBOL. (phonetic) September, 1993, in September, AA, and August, 1993 is AA, and July, 1993, your Long Termers Organization. You did good work with the Arts in Corrections on August, 1993. What did you do participating with them?
INMATE MIMS: I paint, I'm an artist and I've just learned my skills more.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: Oils, or what?
INMATE MIMS: No, acrylics.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: Acrylic paint?
INMATE MIMS: I learned water color and took drawing classes. I took almost all the classes I could. Basket class, pottery, I'm very good at sculpting.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: Okay, and you also have a chronological in there, a thank you chronological for your participation as a unit representative in July, 1993. On August, 1993, you participated in a psychotherapy program, a session. September 17, 1993, AA again. July 28, 1993, you were secretary to Shalom.
INMATE MIMS: Yes --
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: Is that the Jewish organization? And now, what happened to that? Are you still participating in that?
INMATE MIMS: No, because of my injury, I sort of dropped out of everything. The only thing I was doing recently was the AA, NA, the Al Anon, and CODA and LTO.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: Then on August 5, 1993, AA. July, 1993, thanks again from the Long Termers Organization. On July, 1993, Arts in Corrections again, you participated in that. In July, 1993, you were with, let's see July, 1993, from Lifers Organization, the Lifers Group, you participated in that. On June, 1993, AA. On May, 1993, a Walk-A-Thon for the children. An May, 1993, AA. And you've got several more chronologicals in there relating to your Long Termers Organization and some psychotherapy and so on. In the way of certificates, I noted that you had two weight class certificates where you participated in the weight class. Long Termers Organization certificate. The dance, you got a certificate. Self-Esteem Workshop, you got a certificate. You got two certificates for completing Group Psychotherapy. You got a certificate for participating in the Women's Olympics. What did you do in that?
INMATE MIMS: We had little races. I ran.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: Did you? Okay, and then you have a certificate for Breaking Barriers. You have two certificates for participating in the Children's Walk-A-Thon. You have a certificate for Aerobics. You have a certificate for Modern Jazz. You have, it was Olympic certificate I think for Marathon Inspiration. I don't know what that meant.
INMATE MIMS: That's because when I first came here, I was having a lot of back problems and I walked and I got into doing things.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: So you were inspiring those that could do, run and work, running, I see. And then you got a certificate for your vocational Data Processing. You got a certificate for Equipment Utilization. Is that relating to vocational Data Processing?
INMATE MIMS: Which one was it?
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: It's having to do with Equipment Utilization.
INMATE MIMS: I'm sure it was.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: Okay, and then you have one for Introduction to Data Processing and you have one for Introduction to COBOL Language, right?
INMATE MIMS: Yes.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: And then you have one for breaking barriers. Is there anything else now that you've been involved with in the way of activities that I've not mentioned since you've come to CDC before I go to the written portion?
INMATE MIMS: Yes, I almost have my Bachelor's Degree. I only need to take --
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: I was going to ask you about your GED. I didn't see a copy of your GED or your high school diploma.
INMATE MIMS: I know, I took my GED at the College of the Desert when I was forty years old and I passed it. I took the college classes in here. I have my AA degree and I almost have a Bachelor's Degree. The reason I don't is because they stopped the program. But they changed the curriculum so for me to get my degree I'd have to wait until I got out anyway. And I need to still take a language, chemistry and higher math.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: Let me ask you. You say you have your AA degree. Do you have that at your house? Because it's not in your C-File.
INMATE MIMS: There should be a copy of it in my C-File.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: Okay, there should be a copy in there? Have you seen it?
INMATE MIMS: Yes.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: Because I didn't see it.
ATTORNEY KRIBS: You saw it recently?
INMATE MIMS: Umm hmm [yes].
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: All right, is there any other activity that you've been involved with before I go to the written portion?
INMATE MIMS: I took graphic arts.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: Did you?
INMATE MIMS: Took cosmetology. I cut hair on the yard. I cut hair for the girls.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: That's vocation hair?
INMATE MIMS: Yeah [yes], I cut my own hair. But they stopped. I was eight months when they stopped the cosmetology.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: Yeah [yes], I didn't see a certificate for completion for that.
INMATE MIMS: And I took Word Processing but they left it open. I did everything that I could do in Word Processing. They left it open for me to go back and I did go back until I just, I couldn't function anymore because of my neck and back injuries.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: Are you earning any money at this time?
INMATE MIMS: No.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: Because I noted that your last grade was on August, 1996 for vocational Word Processing, which is what we were just talking about, that you had completed a thirty day probation. That was the last, you were getting "A"s in it and that was the last grade you had.
INMATE MIMS: Yeah [yes], I took DOS. I finished DOS and then I was learning WordPerfect when my teacher sent me to the doctor and they medically unassigned me.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: I see. All right, I'm going to go to post-conviction factors and I've read most of them but I will do the post-conviction factors, the summary as prepared by initial J. Cremer, C-R-E-M-E-R, CC-I. He notes, or she notes that:
"this writer is of the opinion that Andrea Mims continues to pose a high degree of threat to the public if given a parole date. She remains unable to discuss the case at all upon the advice of her attorney. Prior to her release, Andrea Mims needs to continue to remain disciplinary-free, resolve her ongoing medical condition so that she will be able to return to a vocational program and openly discuss the various features and dynamics of her case."
Then I'll go right to your psychiatric report, Ms. Mims. And this is a report prepared by Dr. Robert D. McDaniel, Staff Psychiatrist. The doctor notes your mental status at the time of your interview: (from Dr. McDaniel, citing the fraudulent report posted above.)
"There was no evidence of any type of anxiety or depression. She appears to be the same as she did in my previous evaluation. Because the inmate is emphatic about not discussing any issues regarding her crime, I felt that this evaluation largely was pointless given the previous evaluation. I believe that the diagnosis remains the same, that the inmate has not changed since my last evaluation, and her current behavior reflects a continuation of my past observation that this is someone who is not prone to any type of psychological insight. I believe that this inmate is accurate when she states that she is honest with herself as she can be. It is likely that she represents a defense against underlying psychopathology that is too overwhelming for her to conscientiously recognize. It is likely that the inmate's current level of adjustment allows her to live relatively comfortably, yet will not in no way render her any less dangerous than she was at the time of her crime. Psychiatric conclusions would be as per my last evaluation." (Again, keep in mind that Andrea's refusal to discuss her case was on sound attorney advice, as McDaniel and the board were well aware.
And the last evaluation that was given, I'll just do the Axis on her. The diagnosis, your mental status at the time of your interview, but this is an evaluation that was done on 6/5/1997. It gives you no diagnosis under Axis I. And under Axis II, he diagnoses you with personality disorder not otherwise specified with traits of narcissistic and antisocial personality. (This is citing an equally fraudulent evaluation from the year previous, when Andrea was also under legal constraints barring her from discussing her case. McDaniel's "diagnosis," was totally fabricated, having no basis whatsoever.) And having read parts of your psychiatric report, Ms. Mims, I'll return to the chair.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER BENTLEY: We'll go to Mr. Ortega now and parole plans.
COMMISSIONER ORTEGA: What are your parole plans?
INMATE MIMS: Until I'm able to get my parole changed to Nevada, I could stay with my son in Los Angeles.
COMMISSIONER ORTEGA: Now you know that you have to go back to the county of residence when you were --
INMATE MIMS: Well, I have a residence in Los Angeles and a residence in Rancho Mirage. I was not --
COMMISSIONER ORTEGA: But you also had one in Rancho Mirage, though, right?
INMATE MIMS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ORTEGA: Was that where you were living with Mr. Sand?
INMATE MIMS: Yes. But we also were living in Los Angeles. We hadn't sold that yet.
COMMISSIONER ORTEGA: That's probably going to be something you'll have to argue out, I'm sure, with the Parole Division once you get a date. I saw the letters and I have a letter here from your husband. But I did also have a letter from your son, at least from one of your sons, Douglas. And he said that in the event you couldn't go to Reno, that he would have a bedroom there where he lives. He's married now, though, is that correct? Is he married?
INMATE MIMS: He's living with her.
COMMISSIONER ORTEGA: He says. "I have a spare room which she is welcome to use as long as she needs." Then I have a letter from your husband. A letter and then an addendum to that letter. It says here, "If Andrea were to be released, I would be able to support her financially, provide her with substantial health insurance so that she could receive medical care that has been lacking in the prison system." That's from your husband, Richard Jackson, who lives in Reno, Nevada. I guess he's a postal worker?
INMATE MIMS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ORTEGA: And he talks about making around fifty thousand dollars a year. Where did you meet this husband?
INMATE MIMS: Writing through the mail.
COMMISSIONER ORTEGA: He's been here to visit you, I would assume or how else would you get married?
INMATE MIMS: We started writing about six years ago in January and I met him on my birthday five months later.
COMMISSIONER ORTEGA: Okay, and so you got married when?
INMATE MIMS: Four years ago.
COMMISSIONER ORTEGA: What would you do if you got released? What kind of work would you do?
INMATE MIMS: I would like to get my Bachelor's Degree, finish that, which he would like to help me with that to make sure I can get that. There's a lot of things I could do. I could continue painting but my main objective right now is to let my neck and my spine heal because right now it has me pretty disabled.
COMMISSIONER ORTEGA: Now, I understand that was an injury that you received many years ago, isn't it?
INMATE MIMS: Yeah [yes], but I was doing really well and then I lifted a table. I re-injured myself.
COMMISSIONER ORTEGA: Okay, and that's why you had the surgery?
INMATE MIMS: No, I had the surgery, years ago. I fell off a horse and fractured my neck and my lower spine. I was in bad shape for many years and then when I came in here, when I first came in here, I was in pretty bad shape but I started doing weights and aerobics and after quite a few years, I was teaching and I was doing really well. And I guess I thought that I could lift that table. I was fifty-three years old when I lifted that table and I re-injured myself.
COMMISSIONER ORTEGA: So you did have to go through another surgery?
INMATE MIMS: No.
COMMISSIONER ORTEGA: Oh, you have not gone through surgery?
INMATE MIMS: No, they were going to do surgery on my neck but they decided it was too dangerous and my neck is healing.
COMMISSIONER ORTEGA: Okay, so that's the reason why. I know you had a stipulation to unsuitability last year.
INMATE MIMS: No, they were saying I needed the surgery and I was in really bad shape.
ATTORNEY KRIBS: She was a lot worse off last year than this year because I interviewed her last year, too.
COMMISSIONER ORTEGA: Is there anything else we should know about your parole plans?
INMATE MIMS: Oh, there's a lot of things I could do. I'm a good writer. I'm very good at my computer. I like selling herbs and vitamins, I was always involved with that. I could probably get some kind of certificate to be able to do that legally.
COMMISSIONER ORTEGA: Let me tell you that one of the things that we look for, this is your first visit to us, one of the things that we look for in the parole plans is that you have solid parole plans with specific things that you could do. I'm sure that you could do all these things that you have indicated to me, and I'm sure that your husband would be more than happy, is ready and willing to accept you into his home, but what we look for is we look for very specific things. We want to make sure that you've got good support on the outside. The letter from your husband, the letter from your son are clear indications that you have that. But we also look for specific things that you're going to do because we don't know, you know, for sure that all the things that you think are going to happen today are going to be there for you when you ultimately get released.
INMATE MIMS: That's true.
COMMISSIONER ORTEGA: So, what we'd like to see in this section is in the future, if you don't get a date today, is to continue with the letters. Have a letter all the time from your husband. Each time that you come in, a new letter reiterating his support. From your son as well. And also something where you've looked into things that you can do. In terms of, if you have Data Processing expertise, obviously that's the thing that's very active, very important to people today is the use of computers. Have some things in that area as well.
INMATE MIMS: I love computers.
COMMISSIONER ORTEGA: I wish I knew more about them, I would probably feel the same way as you do. We also sent out what we call 3042 notices and those are letters that go out to the District Attorney's Office and to all other offices or agencies that may have an interest in your case. And I see that, I thought we got one letter back from the District Attorney's Office, but they are represented here. Mr. Dunn actually wrote a letter and he is here to make their statements regarding your parole suitability. So if there's nothing else, with that, I'll return it to the Chair.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER BENTLEY: Do you have any questions, Mr. Douglas?
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: No, I have none.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER BENTLEY: Mr. Ortega?
COMMISSIONER ORTEGA: No, no questions.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER BENTLEY? Mr. Dunn?
SUPERVISING DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY DUNN: I have just one question regarding not earning any money. It was my understanding from information that I received that there was an Internet site (he's referring to this site, but under the old glonet URL) where paintings that she has done are being offered for sale and I contest to her current husband and there was also a part of that Internet site where he was soliciting the sale or providing of Visa cards that he would receive a commission from. I'm wondering if she is receiving any portion of the earnings from either the Visa card solicitations or the paintings that she's done?
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER BENTLEY: Are you receiving any money from that?
INMATE MIMS: As far as I know, there hasn't been --
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER BENTLEY: Respond to me.
INMATE MIMS: Oh, as far as I know there hasn't been any money and what money that like friends have been sending for my attorney goes straight to my attorney because some of my friends have sent a little money to my attorney to help pay for my attorney bills, but that's all.
SUPERVISING DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY DUNN: Thank you. (This was an apparent blatant attempt on Dunn's part to strip Andrea of her attorney, Ms. Kribs, who represented Andrea before the board. With every dime we could scrape together for the Federal Writ, I could not have afforded to pay John Duree to fly south to represent Andrea before the board with no chance for a release date. Dunn wished to disqualify Andrea for representation as an indigent so as to trick her into testifying and feeding him information he would be able to use against her later. To Andrea's credit, Dunn was not able to trick her into saying anything in his presence.)
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER BENTLEY: Ms. Kribs?
ATTORNEY KRIBS: I have no questions.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER BENTLEY: Okay, concluding questions.
SUPERVISING DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY DUNN: (The true vitriol of Dunn's remarks are not characterized by his statement here. Andrea told me he looked very thin, and the weight loss made him look far more baneful than his picture on the Dunn page shows him to be. As he continued to talk, his eyes appeared to bulge out of his head as the sputum of hatred issued from his mouth. Fearful, now that the conviction he built his career on is about to fall, Dunn criticizes Andrea for her refusal to discuss her case, while himself avoiding any of the specific circumstances. Most outrageous, he assumes to take the role of my protector, something I will despise him for until the end of his days!) Well, Ms. Mims is obviously a very attractive, very intelligent person. And she should be commended for what she's been able to accomplish since she's entered the institution as far as upgrading herself educationally and the level of participation that she's participated in. But the gnawing, continuing problem that was in place at the time of this very brutal and vicious murder has not changed one bit. Dr. McDaniel (Here Dunn, the professional liar, clings desperately to a psychological report he is well aware is fraudulent. How do I know he's aware of it? He told our investigator, Judy Bracamonte that if he were Andrea's attorney, he'd also advise her not to speak!) addressed that in both of his reports of 1998 and 1997. Ms. Mims has a history of very unstable and abusive social relationships both as a child and throughout her multiple marriages. Two of those marriages, her husband in one case was the fatal victim that she's here for today. The other one was a case where another elderly gentleman, Mr. Mims (Joe Mims was 55 when he married Andrea and she was 41. That's not a shocking age difference, and Joe was not elderly. His health was excellent, and his death at CIW in 1985 may well be at the hands of Bob Dunn, since he is possibly the one who called and asked that their remarriage be canceled, causing Joe to go into cardiac arrest.) was attacked with a hammer while she was out on bail pending the prosecution on the first murder case. During that trial, which lasted about three months, there was extensive psychiatric testimony presented on both sides. There was a separate guilt phase, a separate sanity phase, because she also entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. And there was probably close to a dozen psychiatrists and psychologists that examined Ms. Mims and prepared reports and testified in court. And the overwhelming conclusion of those reports compared to what Dr. McDaniel has said has not changed at all. Ms. Mims is a very sweet, intelligent, attractive person on the outside who has deep, gnawing, psychological problems on the inside, particularly with her relationship with men, that makes her extremely dangerous. She has used throughout her life, he physical attractiveness, her wit, her intelligence, artistic skills that she may have to be very personable, very attractive to men, very appealing to men, and she has used that in a very manipulative and self-centered and narcissistic way. And when those relationships go sour, as they inevitably do because of the social history that she's had and psychological history that she's had, that ends up creating a very explosive and dangerous situation that resulted in the death, in a very brutal death, of Mr. Sand who was a sixty-nine year old man who was confined to a wheelchair. (He was not confined, except by choice.) And, a very vicious assault on Mr. Mims, her next husband, who was also an elderly gentleman with a hammer. (Again a total lie, as I explained. Joe was not elderly, and the blows were glancing, accidental hits, as described in the Story, Chapter 8. This is evidenced by Joe's admissions that he'd made a false report at the behest of Dunn's predecessor, James Stafford Hawkins.) As Dr. McDaniel says, there has been absolutely no insight at all on the part of Ms. Mims to address those deep psychological problems. Throughout her life, she has followed the path of least resistance. What is comfortable for her has been overwhelmingly of most importance to her to the exception of everything else. That has not changed from anything that I've read. The prognosis, as Dr. McDaniel says, for these type of people that have that type of psychological makeup that they have is very difficult because they don't want to address problems, that they live in a world where they are comfortable (Andrea was outraged at the suggestion by Dunn & McDaniel that she is somehow "comfortable" in prison!) and they don't want to do anything to avoid that comfort that they enjoy, their current lifestyle. Of course, that does absolutely nothing to resolve the underlying very, very, very, very serious psychological problems that Ms. Mims has. Both the correctional counselor's report and Dr. McDaniel's report indicate that there is still a high degree of dangerousness if Ms. Mims were to be released. That there's been little or no substantive changes that would change that dangerousness. I submit to the Board that Ms. Mims still does remain extremely dangerous if she were to be released on parole, particularly to any males that she may come into a social relationship with. (In other words, he presumes himself to be my protector, and speaks on my behalf, after I was barred from attending the hearing and speaking.) And, because of that, I would ask the Board to deny parole.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER BENTLEY: Ms. Kribs?
ATTORNEY KRIBS: Thank you. I'm going to begin by taking issue with both of Dr. McDaniel's psychiatric reports. You know I don't usually begin my arguments like this as I've appeared before you many, many times. But I had problems with this last year when I was first assigned to represent Ms. Mims and then, of course, she stipulated due to her injury, and I have a problem with his conclusions again this year. The reason is this, she had exercised her right to not speak about the crime. She actually wants to but she has been restricted by her other attorney. She wants to speak in the groups. She sees the other women talking about their crimes and she wants to participate, but anyway, she exercised her right not to and she can't. And legally this is not supposed to be held against her. The problem with Dr. McDaniel's report and the comments he makes and the conclusions he draws over and over are that he's essentially drawing conclusions with regard to her insight, her remorse, her responsibility and any personality disorders she may have based on the fact that she has not discussed her crime and that, I won't even go into some of the comments he writes. But the fact is this, not discussing the crime does limit the psychiatrist's ability and the Panel's ability to measure very important issues such as insight, remorse, and responsibility. By the same token, since it does limit you, it also absolutely prevents him logically from being able to draw any conclusions as to those areas because they weren't discussed. He did not discuss insight into the crime because he didn't discuss the crime. He did not discuss remorse or responsibility because he didn't discuss the crime. He did not, he cannot draw a conclusion as to her present level of dangerousness or violence potential because they didn't discuss the crime or anything leading up to it. His conclusions are completely meritless. And he also draws part of his conclusions on psychiatric reports done, as has been mentioned by Mr. Dunn, that were conducted at the time of the trial. She's been in the institution for fourteen years. It has been asserted that there is nothing to indicate that she has changed or that her level of dangerousness has changed but the point is, there haven't been discussions to evaluate that. So I take great issue with the conclusions drawn by Dr. McDaniel in both reports. I think that he's being incredibly irresponsible to make statements like that. And you know I never speak out like this with regard to psychiatric reports or anything. Usually everything is in order but I really take issue with that. So having said that, I will follow the rest of Title 15, go through the criteria that my client feels that she meets for suitability. First, she has no history of violent crime at all. She was never even arrested. She has been disciplinary-free all fourteen and a half years that she's been incarcerated. Her classification score is therefore zero. She has participated in therapy and self-help throughout her stay. She has continued her AA, NA, Al Anon and CODA and LTO since the last hearing that was supposed to have taken place. She had previously completed Breaking Barriers, Amer-I-Can, Life Plan for Recovery, Literacy, Tutor Training and MARA. And these are just among some of the things that she as participated in as has been enumerated by Deputy Commissioner Douglas. She has participated in a wealth of programs and always been very eager. She has completed her AA Degree and has almost completed her BA Degree. She's about three courses short. And despite being medically disabled, she's completed all available courses for vocational Data Processing and Word Processing that she could. She's also participated in vocational cosmetology before that program was closed. Again, I've come to the psychiatric report. I would caution the Board in their consideration of Dr. McDaniel's report. She has exercised her right not to discuss her crime and it can't be held against her. Logically, I just don't see how he can draw any conclusions into insight, responsibility or remorse or dangerousness because they did not engage in any discussion that would bring out any of that information one way or another. She has realistic parole plans to initially parole to L.A. County. Her son has written a letter saying he would welcome her into his home in L.A. County. She was between residences at the time of the crime in Los Angeles County and the commitment county. They still owned a home. They were still receiving some mail and sleeping in Los Angeles County half the time. This could be pending a transfer, of course, to Nevada to parole to her husband and he has written a number of letters, he's very supportive. He wants to support her financially, completely. He said it doesn't matter to him if she cannot work due to her disability. But they also both feel that she can set up something. She's very bright as everyone has stated. He also has discussed his insurance, his medical insurance. He really wants to take very good care of her. They both wrote letters. And her medical condition may limit her ability to work but this also should not be held against her because what Title 15 does require is not necessarily a firm job offer but literally, and I'm quoting this I think verbatim but I don't have it in front of me, it requires a marketable skill be developed in prison that can be put to use upon release. And she has done that with her vocational work in Word Processing and Data Processing. Additionally she has, as I stated, the financial support of her spouse and that is documented. Lastly, her age of fifty-seven does reduce the probability of recidivism and she therefore submits that she does meet the criteria of suitability as set forth in Title 15. Submit.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER BENTLEY: Do you have anything you want to add about what your attorney said concerning your parole suitability?
INMATE MIMS: I would love to but I can't because of the restrictions that have been put on me. But I feel that I have resolved and healed a lot of my problems and I wish that I could talk about them to show you that I have.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER BENTLEY: All right. The time is now 11:55. We'll be in recess and we'll call everybody back when we have a decision.
INMATE MIMS: May I say something else?
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER BENTLEY: Sure.
INMATE MIMS: I realize, I have no expectations of a date but I hope that my legal work that's being done for me now is resolved and if I am back in front of you again, I would like not to be so long, you know, like five years down the road or something. We're hoping that if I do come back and finally like my legal work nothing happens with that that I'll be able to discuss what you want to hear soon.
ATTORNEY KRIBS: What Ms. Mims is trying to say is that, if her other legal work does not pan out and if she is denied today, she would like a lesser denial so that she can come back and discuss the crime and everything else with you because her legal work should be resolved.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER BENTLEY: Okay, we'll take that into consideration.
INMATE MIMS: Thank you.
R E C E S S
At this point, the board retired into a side room, and Andrea went to wait in a small ante-room to the side to await the decision. Bob Dunn's whereabouts at this time is uncertain. Ms. Kribs has told me that Dunn probably went into another waiting room reserved for prosecuting attorneys, victims, and survivors, but she did not observe where he went. Andrea believes she saw him actually enter the deliberation room with the board, and exit with them later. If this is true, then Dunn and the Board have flagrantly violated the law. Unfortunately, Andrea did not realize this was illegal, and did not, therefore, bring it to the attention of Mary Kribs.
CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PRISON TERMS
D E C I S I O N
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER BENTLEY: Everybody in the room has returned. Ms Mims, the Panel has reviewed all the information we've received from the public and we've determined that you're not suitable for parole at this time and you'd pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society if given a release date. This is a unanimous decision and it's based on the following reasons: Of course, the first reason is the commitment offense which was an extremely brutal attack on your then husband, a man who was disabled, a man who was confined to a wheelchair, a man described as being in a very weak condition. Coming from the Statement of Facts where you in some sort of a fit of rage stabbed him fifty-one times, he had blunt trauma to the head created by being hit with a board and he was badly mutilated. And then following that horrible crime, it didn't stop you from committing other crimes as you then attacked your next husband, Mr. Mims, with a hammer. We find our second reason is your unstable social history. You've had a history of being a prostitute. You didn't have a very stable life at all and contributing, I think, in leading up then to the murder of your husband. And you had numerous tumultuous relationships and had been married a total of seven times. We find in prison you've been doing some things very well. You've remained disciplinary-free and you've upgraded educationally, and we commend you for that. However, these positive factors do not outweigh the factors of unsuitability. I'm going to go, and I am going to use Dr. McDaniel's report because I would like to point out for the record that like this Panel, Dr. McDaniel is going to accept as true the court findings. (What do the court findings in 1984 have to do with McDaniel's fraudulent postulation as to why Andrea cannot discuss her case in 1998?) And, Dr. McDaniel, we find from experience does very insightful reports. (Dr. McDaniel was hired by the board after a law passed in 1992 that required the board to consider cases of battered women's' syndrome favorably for release. He was a known hater of women, and a debunker of domestic violence cases, and they were confident he would write derogatory reports for them, allowing them the cover and justification for continuing their "no parole, no exceptions" policy, even in the most meritorious of cases. To them, this makes him very reliable indeed!) He indicates that in the current report, "It's likely that the inmate's current level of adjustment allows her to live relatively comfortably yet will in no way render her any less dangerous than she was at the time of the crime." And then we go back, and he refers many times to this report done on June 5, 1997, where based on testing, he indicates that, "in a less controlled setting such as return to the community, this inmate can be considered likely to deteriorate as she is described as being insightless in her psychodiagnostic testing and, in my opinion, has a very superficial understanding of herself and her relationship to others." I do want to go back and reference Dr. Cotter's 1987 assessment. I find it totally incredible and that's why I want to put it on the record and I think the other doctors did too but they were a little more complimentary in the way they addressed it than I'm going to do. Here is a situation where a doctor is very charmed by the prisoner and takes and puts down one of the most bizarre stories that has yet to come out about how this crime occurred being that there were a group of Mexicans that came in and there's photographs of these Mexicans and that she was raped. (Bentley is obviously peeved because an earlier psychiatrist, Dr. Lloyd Cotter, wrote a very favorable report on Andrea. He considered her wrongfully incarcerated, based not just on conversations with her, but with Joe Mims, who apparently DID have photographs that he may not have understood. And, while they have shown a gang in the condominium with Andrea and Bob Sand, they were probably being paid by Sand to rape Andrea for his gratification. In any case, Bentley is accusing Andrea of being manipulative because she "charmed" Dr. Cotter into writing a favorable report! Catch-22!) It goes on and on and on and believes every word she's saying. Truly bizarre. We're going to be denying you parole for four years. We don't think it's likely a hearing Panel would find you suitable for parole during the following four years. This a separate decision and it's based, of course, on the very cold and callous manner in which you took the life of Mr. Sand, a man who was doing a lot for you, giving you a lifestyle which I'm sure you were becoming very accustomed to and he perhaps was thinking of divorcing (an absolute lie, as evidenced on the Wills page!) you and you felt threatened about that and we won't know until you decide you want to talk about it. And then also the attack on Mr. Mims. Also for the four year denial, of course we're going to use Dr. McDaniel's report because those are unfavorable and indicate a longer period of time is needed in incarceration. And we'd like to see you do additional programming and to get a marketable skill that you can use on the outside so you won't have to be so dependent on the men supporting you throughout your life. (If you read between the lines, Bentley is telling Andrea she'll never be considered by any panel in the future unless she divorces me and ends our relationship!) And we're recommending that you remain disciplinary-free and that you upgrade vocationally and educationally as you can, participate in self-help and any available therapy. Here's a copy of the tentative decision. Ms. Mims, I don't know if I will, I doubt if I will be seeing you in four years, but I want to put on the record that it's going to be very important that you be truthful. You've told a lot of different stories about how this crime occurred. We respect your right that you didn't have to talk to us about it today but when you do choose to talk, I hope it will be truthful. And then I also want to add that it was a state count with an assault with a deadly weapon that indicated it was Penal Code section 245(a) and it was Riverside county, count number one. The Case Number I didn't have is ICR 8318. Do any of my colleagues have anything they wanted to say?
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: Only to say that I didn't see your AA Degree in your C-File. You want to have that checked and make sure it gets in there, okay, because for those of us who don't know you --
INMATE MIMS: (inaudible) a chronological saying that I received it.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS: Yeah, I did not see a copy of your AA Degree. So, do you have one at your house? Get a copy and make sure it gets in your C-File, okay?
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER BENTLEY: Mr. Ortega?
COMMISSIONER ORTEGA: Nothing.
ATTORNEY KRIBS: May I add one thing, I'm sorry. I could have heard wrong but I think you said he had fifty-one stab wounds but the appellate decision said he had fifty-one wounds, part of which were bruises, scrapes, scratches, lacerations, four stab wounds. I just wanted to --
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER BENTLEY: Would you agree the body was severely traumatized?
ATTORNEY KRIBS: Oh, yes, I just wanted, being the Initial Hearing, I wanted to make sure that I heard everything correctly.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER BENTLEY: Okay.
ATTORNEY KRIBS: Thank you.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER BENTLEY: The time is now 12:15 and this hearing is concluded.
--o0o--
PAROLE DENIED FOUR YEARS
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION JULY 31, 1998.
ANDREA MIMS W-20080.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update, Sept., 2001: Andrea will be scheduled for a new parole hearing sometime in 2002. She is being given special consideration as a battered woman. Check back for updates and information on where to send letters of support.
Editor's note: As Editor-In-Chief of True Democracy (La verdad sobre la democracia) I'd like to make an example of this case because it is so typical of battered women. Let's demand that Andrea Mims be freed on the page that makes my unique historically accurate magazine stand alone in solving problems because she is so clearly innocent of this crime.