Whether the state courts of California rendered decisions in violation of precedents established by other state courts of last resort or United States Court of Appeals

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. On July 15, 2021, the Appellant was arrested for an alleged violation of his parole on . account of committing a felony Hit and Run-Person(Injury) under Vehicle Code Section 20001. 2. Thereafter, on September 10, 2021, the Trial Court, in Case No. 21PA012234 concluded that the Appellant/Defendant had violated the terms of his parole by fleeing . the scene of an injury accident, and thus, the Appellant was remanded back to the custody of CDCR for future parole reconsideration hearings (“Trial Court ORDER”). ; A copy of the Trial Court Order is herein attached as: Exuisir A (TriAt Court ORDER; ALONG WITH AN EXCERPT ATTACHMENT) ) THE TRIAL COURT’S CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT; (PGS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 34, AND 35) SHOWING HOW THE COURT DID NOT ALLOW RELEVANT TESTIMONY REGARDING A MANDATED STEP NOT UTILIZED. (IE. USAGE OF THE PAROLE DECISION MAKING INSTRUMENT -PVDMI). 3. The matter went on to the Court of Appeals, Third Appellate District, bearing Case No. C095260, where the Appellant challenged the Trial Court Order for lack of substantial evidence. However, the Appellate Court concluded that there was substantial evidence ‘ below, the Appellant requests that this Court grants the petition and the requested relief in favor of the Appellant and against the Respondents. , 6. In view of the above, the following questions are presented: (i) | Whether the state courts of California rendered decisions in violation of precedents . established by other state courts of last resort or United States Court of Appeals? (ii) Whether the Appellant was denied his due process rights under the U.S. Constitution, Amdt.14.81.3? and : (iii) Whether the Appellant’ parole was revoked in error? . i. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 7. Olyric Robinson petitions this Court for a Writ of Certiorari to review the judgment of the Supreme Court of California. : i. JURISDICTION : 8. The Supreme Court of California entered the Denial Decision on March 22, 2023 : (Exuusrr C). Hence, this petition is timely pursuant to Rule 13 (Review on Certiorari: Time for Petitioning) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States. . . 9. This Court has jurisdiction under U.S.C., Title 18, Section 1254. IV. STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED 10. The case involves Appellant’s due process rights under the U.S. Constitution and obligatory provisions set forth in CA Title 15, which entitles Appellant parolee to 4 T4BLE_OF CONTENTS