In Re Ross

Good Law
110 Cal. Rptr. 3d 811·185 Cal. App. 4th 636·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 863
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 11, 2010C062466California4,499 words

Opinion

Opinion

Scotland, J.

When the Board of Parole Hearings (Board) determines that a prisoner sentenced to an indeterminate prison term is suitable for parole (Pen. Code, § 3041), the Governor has the authority to review the matter de novo and to reverse or modify the Board’s parole decision. (Cal. Const., art. V, § 8, subd. (b); Pen. Code, § 3041.2, subd. (b); In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181, 1204 [ 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 169 , 190 P.3d 535 ] [“[T]he Governor undertakes an independent, de novo review of the inmate’s suitability for parole . . . .”] (hereafter Lawrence).) When the Board or Governor finds a prisoner unsuitable for parole, the prisoner may seek judicial review, by petition for writ of habeas corpus. (In re Rosenkrantz (2002) 29 Cal.4th 616, 652, 658 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 104 , 59 P.3d 174 ] (hereafter Rosenkrantz).) The court’s review “is limited to ascertaining whether there is some evidence in the record that supports [the unsuitable for parole finding]” (id. at p. 677), i.e., there is some evidence that, at the time parole was denied, the prisoner “continues to pose an unreasonable risk to public safety [if released from prison]” (Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1221 , original…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.