High Court Asked to Void Wilson Veto of Parole for Killer : Prisons: Lawyers for inmate say governor’s action is illegal because crime in question predated the 1988 law he invoked.

Attorneys for an imprisoned killer asked the California Supreme Court Wednesday to order his immediate release, saying Gov. Pete Wilson acted unlawfully in invoking a 1988 law for the first time to block the inmate’s parole.

The law, an amendment to the state Constitution approved by the voters as Proposition 89, allows a governor to overturn a decision by parole authorities to free a convicted killer.

Wilson’s action took place last May in the case of Johnny Arafiles, who had served 14 years--seven beyond the minimum--for the 1977 fatal stabbing in Stockton of a witness who testified against Arafiles’ brother in a drug case.

The governor blocked Arafiles’ release after receiving complaints from a San Joaquin County prosecutor. Wilson said the killing of a witness was especially grave and represented “a serious threat to the public order.”

In a petition to the high court, Dennis Riordan of San Francisco, a lawyer for Arafiles, contended that the 1988 law could not be applied to crimes committed before its enactment. Wilson’s action, he said, violated constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws--or laws that seek to impose new punishment for offenses that already have occurred.

Riordan asked the justices to take direct jurisdiction of the case--without waiting for a trial or appeal court to act--and order Arafiles’ release, as originally approved by the state Board of Prison Terms.

The attorney told reporters that if the high court upholds his claim, no governor would be able to invoke the 1988 law to overturn the parole of a convicted first-degree murderer until the year 2005. Under current law, such persons must serve about 17 years in prison before becoming eligible for parole.

James Lee, deputy press secretary to Wilson, said the governor “stands by his decision and will continue to do so.” Both Lee and state Deputy Atty. Gen. Morris Lenk, who will represent the governor in court, declined comment on the legal issues in the case.

Arafiles, 39, was convicted of the murder of Eddie Leroy Anderson and received a term of seven years to life in prison, under the indeterminate sentencing law in effect at the time.

In the fall, 1988, election, Gov. George Deukmejian and other officials successfully backed Proposition 89--a measure drafted after a state appeals court, in a widely publicized test case, held that Deukmejian lacked authority to block the parole of convicted rapist-murderer William Archie Fain.

Last March, Arafiles appeared at a parole hearing before the state Board of Prison Terms, saying he had turned to religion, taken educational courses and sought to turn his imprisonment “into a university for myself.”

The board credited Arafiles with showing “signs of remorse” and said he had improved his ability to function in society by taking college and vocational courses and participating in self-help and therapy programs. The board concluded Arafiles did not pose “an unreasonable risk” and announced he would be released on parole.

Such action is relatively rare. In the 1989-90 fiscal year, more than 1,200 life-term prisoners received hearings but parole was granted to only 3.6%, according to the board.

In late April, Eual D. Blansett, deputy district attorney of San Joaquin County, wrote Wilson, saying he was “appalled” by the board’s decision to release Arafiles, whom he said had committed “an unprovoked, premeditated attack on a defenseless and surprised victim.”

In May, the governor issued his decision to reverse the board. In addition to killing a witness, Arafiles had committed a “particularly cruel” crime by stabbing and then chasing his wounded victim to administer the final blows, Wilson said. The governor acknowledged that Arafiles had made progress toward parole, but said more time in prison was required.

In his petition to the high court, attorney Riordan said that in overturning the board’s decision, Wilson had improperly relied on the letter from prosecutor Blansett--a document that was not presented to the board. State statutes require the governor to base his decision on the same data on which the board based its decision, Riordan said.

The lawyer also said that Wilson acted unlawfully by reversing the decision without giving Arafiles an opportunity to be heard.