INDETERMINATE SENTENCE PAROLE RELEASE REVIEW (Penal Code Section 3041.2)

JOSE GONZALEZ, B-94419 First Degree Murder (two counts)

AFFIRM: ________________

MODIFY: ________________

REVERSE: _______ X _______

STATEMENT OF FACTS

James and Essie Effron owned a clothing store in downtown San Diego. In 1977, after years of running a successful business, the Effrons planned to retire. Mr. Effron, who was 62, suffered from severe ulcers, and Mrs. Effron, who was 59, had recently undergone surgery and chemotherapy for cancer. The couple hired Jose Gonzalez to help during the stores final weeks. Throughout his employment, Mrs. Effron told her daughter that she found [Mr. Gonzalez] downright frightening. Mrs. Effron eventually fired Mr. Gonzalez for being disrespectful to a customer. She told her daughter that the stare he gave her [said] that he was going to kill her.

On November 21, 1977, three customers entered the store after closing time. They found the store empty and the safe open, and called the police. Police responded and found the Effrons in separate rooms in the basement of the store, each severely beaten in the head with a lead pipe. Their hands were bound with neckties and their heads were covered with a jacket or smock. Mrs. Effron had been beaten to death, and her jewelry had been taken from her body; her blood covered the wall and the floor, and her brain and skull protruded from the back of her head. In the next room, Mr. Effron was discovered tied to a clothing rack by the legs, face down in a pool of his own blood, but alive and asking for help. He was taken to the hospital, where he named Juan, Jesus, and Jose as his attackers. He died from severe head injuries several days later.

During their investigation, police noted that the stores safe was empty except for some papers and a torn envelope containing $600. The cash register and cash box, containing $350, were intact. A technician identified a fingerprint on the torn envelope as Mr. Gonzalezs. Police contacted the store manager, who reported that there had been a disagreement between the Effrons and several former employees, including Mr. Gonzalez. Police subsequently obtained a search warrant and arrested Mr. Gonzalez. At the time of his arrest, Mr. Gonzalez had $360 and a business card for a diamond store in his wallet. An employee at the diamond store identified Mr. Gonzalez as the individual who sold him a diamond ring that had been taken from Mrs. Effrons body.

GOVERNING LAW

The question I must answer is whether Mr. Gonzalez will pose a current danger to the public if released from prison. The circumstances of the crime can provide evidence of current

Jose Gonzalez, B-94419 First Degree Murder Page 2

dangerousness when the record also establishes that something in the inmates pre- or post-incarceration history, or the inmates current demeanor and mental state, indicate that the circumstances of the crime remain probative of current dangerousness. (In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal. 4th 1181, 1214.)

DECISION

The Board of Parole Hearings found Mr. Gonzalez suitable for parole based on his age, medical conditions, length of time in prison, self-help programming, educational and vocational achievements, lack of recent institutional misconduct, parole plans, and risk assessment.

I acknowledge Mr. Gonzalez has been in prison for nearly 40 years, suffers from various medical conditions, is now 60 years old, and has made efforts to improve himself while incarcerated. He has not been disciplined for serious institutional misconduct since 2007. He participated in self-help programming, including Alternatives to Violence, Anger Management, and Victim Offender Insight. He earned his GED, completed vocational training, and received positive ratings from his work supervisors. I commend Mr. Gonzalez for taking these positive steps. But they are outweighed by negative factors that demonstrate he remains unsuitable for parole.

Mr. Gonzalezs crime was chilling and unconscionable. He participated in a brutal double murder where the Effrons were bound, beaten in the head with a lead pipe, and left for dead in the basement of their store. Mrs. Effron had recently undergone surgery and chemotherapy and was particularly vulnerable when she was attacked. I note that the Effrons children have appeared at Mr. Gonzalezs hearings to express their ongoing sense of loss, and that many members of the community have written to oppose parole.

Mr. Gonzalez continues to minimize his role in this crime. He told the Board that he was angry and felt cheated because he had been fired by the Effrons over a pay dispute. He claims, however, that he and his co-defendants planned only to rob the Effrons. He said that while he went through the store safe his co-defendants were supposed to be binding and blindfolding the Effrons in the basement, and that after some time passed he went into the basement to see what was taking them so long. According to Mr. Gonzalez, one of his crime partners was arguing with Mr. Effron, who was tied to clothing rack. The crime partner allegedly pointed a gun at Mr. Gonzalez and ordered him to kill Mr. Effron. Mr. Gonzalez asserts that he took a lead pipe, stood between his crime partner and Mr. Effron, and struck Mr. Effron multiple times with the pipe while also hitting the pipe of the clothing rack that Mr. Effron was tied to, in an attempt to knock him unconscious, not to kill him. He denies ever seeing Mrs. Effron on the night of the murders. He told the Board he was in shock, but then accompanied his crime partners to Tijuana, where they divided the proceeds from the robbery.

These claims are entirely implausible. Mr. Gonzalez left behind a substantial amount of money in the stores safe, cash register, cash box, and Mrs. Effrons purse. He beat Mr. Effron several times in the head with a lead pipe and left him face down in a pool of blood, causing brain contusions and a massive skull fracture that eventually killed him. Even after he claims he was forced to kill Mr. Effron, Mr. Gonzalez accompanied his crime partners to Tijuana, pawned the

Jose Gonzalez, B-94419 First Degree Murder Page 3

jewelry taken from Mrs. Effrons body, and maintained his innocence after he was arrested. Until recently, Mr. Gonzalez denied that anger or resentment played any role in his decision to rob the Effrons, and he continues to claim that he didnt hurt them out of revenge. Mr. Gonzalezs statements simply do not add up. The psychologist who evaluated Mr. Gonzalez in 2014 noted that he continues to have ongoing difficulty accepting responsibility for past transgressions, including his criminal history, institutional misconduct, and the life crime. Similarly, the Board noted that he minimizes his responsibility for the murders, that he did not take culpability for this [crime] and for a lot of your negative behaviors, and that his version of the crime really doesnt make sense to us. Until Mr. Gonzalez accepts responsibility for his actions and can better explain the rage and violence he displayed in carrying out this horrific crime, I do not believe that he is prepared to be released.

CONCLUSION

I have considered the evidence in the record that is relevant to whether Mr. Gonzalez is currently dangerous. When considered as a whole, I find the evidence shows that he currently poses an unreasonable danger to society if released from prison. Therefore, I reverse the decision to parole Mr. Gonzalez.

Decision Date: July 1, 2015 ___________________________________ EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Governor, State of California