Justices: Is dentist still dangerous?

Mostly relying on what one associate justice called a meaningless “catch all” phrase to keep people incarcerated, a state deputy attorney general argued Monday that a Costa Mesa dentist should not be freed after 25 years in prison for killing three people.

Representing the people, Deputy Atty. Gen. Amy Roebuck told a three-judge panel in Santa Ana’s Court of Appeal that Tony Protopappas, 63, still “lacks insight” into his crimes and continues to present a danger to society.

Roebuck said that in years past, the dentist avoided responsibility for his crimes, and only lately has sung a different tune, most recently at his 2008 parole hearing.

In late 1982 and early 1983, Protopappas killed Kim Andreassen, 23, Cathryn Jones, 31, and Patricia Craven, 13, by giving them fatal doses of a general anesthetic. He was convicted of three counts of second-degree murder in 1984 and sentenced to 15 years to life in prison.

Protopappas admitted to drug and alcohol abuse in the months leading up to the deaths.

But that has all changed, argued Protopappas’ lawyer, Rich Pfeiffer. Protopappas has accepted responsibility for the murders, and has a plan in place to remain sober should he ever be freed, Pfeiffer told the justices.

On top of that, he can never be a dentist again, so the circumstances of the killings will never repeat themselves, he said.

A 2008 state Supreme Court ruling mandated that if a prisoner no longer presents a danger to society and there isn’t a legitimate reason to keep them locked up, he or she should be paroled.

Pfeiffer said parole boards reflexively reject prisoners’ parole and just want to give Protopappas more time. He is appealing the board’s decision, claiming the state is denying his client’s right to due process.

Associate justices Richard Aronson, William Rylaarsdam and Raymond Ikola pressed Roebuck to justify the parole board’s 2008 decision to reject dentist’s parole.

Roebuck repeatedly quoted the board’s claim that Protopappas “lacks insight” into his crimes, but Ikola said the phrase is meaningless when a parole board doesn’t have a solid reason to reject parole.

“In your personal opinion, what is this danger?” Rylaarsdam asked Roebuck about Protopappas.

She hesitated to answer, telling the justices that her opinion was irrelevant. Rylaarsdam kept up the pressure.

“You don’t want to answer. You can’t think of anything,” he told her. “The question is, does he still present a danger?”

Pfeiffer is aiming for the court to order the parole board to grant Protopappas’ parole at his next hearing, April 22.

Even then, he said, Protopappas won’t be freed. His parole would likely be rejected by the governor and he would end up in appeal yet again, he said.

The court has 90 days to reach its decision.