In Re Stanley

In this opinion we dispose of habeas corpus petitions of two state prison inmates who challenge the parole standards presently pursued by the California Adult Authority. These standards were announced in Directive No. 75/20, issued by the Chairman of the Adult Authority on April 15, 1975. A brief background description will aid in recognition of the issues.

The Indeterminate Sentence Law vests in the Adult Authority two distinct discretionary functions: sentence-fixing within the statutory minimum and maximum terms for the inmate’s crime and parole-setting. In past years the Adult Authority coupled these two functions by fixing sentence only at the time it granted parole. Deferment of the inmate’s parole readiness thus prolonged the indeterminacy of . his sentence. In consequence, a prison inmate might wait for many years without either a parole date or ultimate discharge date. (See In re Rodriguez (1975) 14 Cal.3d 639 [ 122 Cal.Rptr. 552 , 537 P.2d 384 ]; In re Lynch (1972) 8 Cal.3d 410 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 217 , 503 P.2d 921 ]; In re Williams (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 10, 12-13 [ 125 Cal.Rptr. 457 ].)

Directive 75/20 was designed to inaugurate a new policy. In effect, it is a…