Daniel Marsh was a fifteen year old living in California when he would murder an elderly couple
According to court documents Daniel Marsh had been living with homicidal fantasies for sometime and decided to act on it
Daniel Marsh would break into the home of Claudia Maupin and Oliver Northup where he would stab the elderly couple to death. According to initial police reports Marsh picked the home because it was easy to break into
Daniel Marsh would be arrested, convicted and sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for twenty five years
Daniel Marsh Photos
Daniel Marsh FAQ
Where Is Daniel Marsh Now
Daniel marsh is incarcerated at RJ Donovan Correctional Facility
When Is Daniel Marsh Release Date
Daniel Marsh is serving a life sentence however is eligible for parole in 2037
Daniel Marsh Case
Daniel Marsh, who was convicted of a brutal double murder in Davis when he was a teen, will remain in prison after his appeal to be released on SB 1391 was denied.
Marsh has been pushing to be released as part of SB 1391, a law that prohibits adult prosecution of juveniles under 16. Marsh was 15 when Claudia Maupin and Chip Northup were murdered.
Maupin and Northup’s family have been campaigning to stop Marsh from being released.
“This is not a juvenile who needs a second chance. This is a man who thought about what he was doing and has been quoted as saying he would do it again,” Victoria Hurd, Maupin’s daughter, previously told CBS13.
Marsh had an appeal hearing back in August. He could have been released as early as next May on his 25th birthday.
However, on Wednesday, family says they were notified that Marsh’s appeal had been denied. He will remain in prison and serve out his sentence.
https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/daniel-marsh-davis-murderer-remaining-in-prison-appeal/
Daniel Marsh News
Daniel Marsh’s sentence for a Davis double homicide — deemed final nearly a year ago by a state appellate court — may not be final after all.
Last week, the California Supreme Court sent the case back to the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento to review its September 2021 ruling in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in a similar case.
Daniel Marsh was 15 years old when he brutally stabbed local attorney Oliver “Chip” Northup, 87; and his wife Claudia Maupin, 76, in their South Davis condominium in April 2013, later telling authorities the carefully planned crime gave him an “exhilarating” feeling.
Tried as an adult, Marsh received a state prison sentence of 52 years to life, although his juvenile status would make him eligible for a parole hearing after 25 years.
Then came Proposition 57, approved by voters in 2016, which stripped district attorneys of the ability to directly file juvenile cases in adult court — as was permitted at the time of Marsh’s arrest — and instead required a judge’s ruling following a fitness hearing.
In light of that measure, Marsh underwent a Yolo Superior Court hearing to determine whether his case should have been tried in juvenile court and sentenced accordingly, making him eligible for release from prison at age 25.
Marsh, who is serving his sentence at the R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego, turned 25 in May.
Judge Samuel McAdam rejected Marsh’s resentencing bid in October 2018, his ruling later upheld by the Third Appellate District.
Marsh pursued a new opportunity with Senate Bill 1391, which revised existing legislation allowing 14- and 15-year-old youths to be tried as adults in California, regardless of the circumstances of their crimes. Marsh was a month shy of his 16th birthday at the time of the Davis murders.
At issue: whether the judgment in Marsh’s case was final when SB 1391 took effect on Jan. 1, 2019, more than four years after his Yolo County conviction.
The appellate court heard oral arguments in the case last summer and later dismissed Marsh’s appeal, ruling his judgment became finalized back in 2018, making him ineligible for resentencing in juvenile-court jurisdiction.
Marsh’s appellate attorney, Mark Greenberg, petitioned the California Supreme Court to review the matter. The court granted a review but set the case aside pending another matter, People v. Padilla, an appeal of a 1982 murder case that also explored the issue of finality and whether recent law should apply retroactively.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ordered the Marsh case sent back to the Third District Court of Appeal to reconsider its prior ruling in light of the Padilla decision, which in June granted the now-40-year-old defendant a juvenile-court fitness hearing under Prop. 57.
It was unclear Friday whether the appellate court would hear oral arguments in the case or when it might decide the issue.
Greenberg welcomed the order, saying “the Supreme Court decision on Padilla supports Mr. Marsh’s argument for retroactivity. We’ll see if the Third District agrees.”
But the development came as grim news to Yolo County prosecutors and the victims’ families, who thought Marsh’s appeals were finished.
“While our father raised us to believe that due process was very important in allowing all avenues of appeal to be exhausted, it’s very difficult to be the victim in a situation and have this constant churn of a process,” Mary Northup, Chip Northup’s daughter, said Friday.
“It’s hard enough to go through it once, but to continually remember the facts and have them publicized, it has an impact on our lives,” she said.
“When do the families ever get a break? It’s nonsense that a criminal of this nature should ever be allowed to walk the streets again,” added Sarah Rice, Maupin’s granddaughter. “We just want to move forward and heal, and these court appeals and reconsiderations don’t allow for it properly. Let him serve his time and stop wasting taxpayers’ money.”
Deputy District Attorney Amanda Zambor, who tried Marsh’s case in 2014, noted that the new legislation “does not make distinctions for the most violent juvenile offenders such as Marsh, who are true threats to public safety. Nor do they consider the effects of the new laws on the victims of crime.
“It is not justice to continue to re-traumatize victims over and over again,” Zambor said. “At some point these cases have to be final, otherwise victims will continue to be re-victimized with each new law that passes.”