 George Bakerjian, Staff Attorney. Statutory Authority  “[A]ny decision of the parole panel finding an inmate suitable for parole shall become final.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
S.L Part 1, Section 3.(b) G.S. 150B-21.3A: PERIODIC REVIEW AND EXPIRATION OF EXISTING RULES.
Advertisements

The Allegation An allegation may be submitted by : Any Person. An allegation may be filed with the PLSB through: The Department of Education A Public.
Staff Development Emergency Operations 1. Identify 5 purposes of the offender/student grievance process Identify 5 grievable issues Identify 12 non-grievable.
Faculty Forum: March 5, 2008 Shall the Collected Rules and Regulations be revised to adopt the revised Pilot Faculty Grievance Procedure recommended by.
Medicaid1 SANDHILLS CENTER PARTICIPATING PROVIDER VIOLATIONS AND DISPUTE RESOLUTIONS (Medicaid & State Funded)
The Appeals Process by Gina chandler
Appeal Practice Before Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
1 _____ March 5, 2009 SC Sentencing Reform Commission Presenter South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster S206/H3166 _____.
Kentucky Department of Public Advocacy | 100 Fair Oaks Lane, Suite 302, Frankfort, Kentucky | (502) | Post Conviction DNA.
“Student Due Process” School Administrators of South Dakota April 7, 2015.
Minimum Qualifications for Faculty A Discussion of What Is and What Might Be.
Public Safety Realignment Local custody for non-violent, non- serious, non-sex offenders Changes to State Parole Local Post-release Supervision Local.
Sentence Credits and Inmate Release
ICAOS Jail Administrator Presentation Presented by: [Revision 3/1/2014]
Legislative Rule-Making Process. Three Different Processes Higher Education 29A-3A-1 et seq State Board of Education 29A-3B-1 et seq All other state agencies.
Virginia’s Geriatric Release Provision. 2 Geriatric Release Provision & Truth-in-Sentencing  The Geriatric Release Provision was adopted as part of the.
ICAOS Jail Administrator Presentation Presented by: [Revision 5/18/2012]
JUVENILE COURT: CONTEXT AND OVERVIEW Janet Mason March 8, 2006 Institute of Government UNC at Chapel Hill.
1 “For Better or For Worse” State Bar of Arizona American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers January 28, 2010 Rules Update Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure,
Office of Business Development Training
Statutory and Policy Limits 18 U.S.C. § 3582(b) – Effect of Finality of Judgment Notwithstanding the fact that a sentence to imprisonment can subsequently.
1 Division of Adult Parole Operations MARGARITA PEREZ Deputy Director Enhancing Public Safety through the Successful Reintegration of Offenders.
Welcome Please set all cell phones to vibrate..
When Does Criminal Justice Realignment Take Effect? 1 Eligible felonies sentenced to county jail: applies to any person sentenced on or after October 1,
General Aspects of the OCC Office of Administrative Proceedings AND Appellate Procedures at the OCC Eric R. King Week Eight October 14, 2010.
Privacy, Confidentiality and Duty to Warn in School Guidance Services March 2006 Disclaimer - While the information in these slides are designed to reflect.
Understanding How Prison Sentences Work
Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulation Bureau of Construction Codes.
Agency Drafts Statement of Scope Governor Approves Statement of Scope (2) No Agency Drafts: Special Report for rules impacting housing
SUMMARY OF INFORMAL COMMENTS Temporary Waiver of Terms Regulations May 2006.
Chapter 6 Postimprisonment Community Supervision.
MENTALLY DISORDERED OFFENDER (MDO) HEARINGS Presented by: Kara Houston, Staff Attorney.
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK MARCH 24, 2014 CITY COUNCIL MEETING RESCIND RESOLUTION NO AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE RULES GOVERNING THE PASADENA.
Doc.: IEEE /1129r1 Submission July 2006 Harry Worstell, AT&TSlide 1 Appeal Tutorial Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE
Lecture 4. OUTCOMES What must the equity plan include?. What must affirmative action measures include? Which factors are taken into account in determining.
Summary of Rulemaking in California for the Forensic Alcohol Laboratories Regulation Review Committee Cathy L. Ruebusch, RN, MSN Office of Regulations.
Probation and Parole: Theory and Practice CHAPTER Probation and Parole: Theory and Practice, 12e Howard Abadinsky Copyright © 2015, © 2012 by Pearson Education,
Public Review Committee Linda Sullivan-Colglazier Assistant Attorney General July 28, 2011.
Attendance Directors Meeting April 18, 2012 Home School and Homebound.
1 ICAOS 2008 Rule Amendment Presentation for Deputy Compact Administrators & Compact Office Staff Presented by:
Academic Senate for California Community Colleges ­– Leadership Institute 2008 Basics for Effective Senates Shaaron Vogel Wheeler North Academic Senate.
EDAD 520 Legal and Ethical Foundations of Educational Leadership.
1 Alberta Association of Police Governance Calgary, Alberta May 1, 2010 Rev
Administrative Law The Enactment of Rules and Regulations.
Parole in Canada: 2013 Ralph Serin, Ph.D., C.Psych. Associate Professor
Immediate Sanction Probation Pilot Project Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission June 8, 2015.
AMENDMENTS TO THE PROGRAM COMPLIANCE REVIEW GUIDE July 2006 IFTA Annual Business Meeting.
1 Eleventh National HIPAA Summit The New HIPAA Enforcement Rule Gerald “Jud” E. DeLoss, Esq. General Counsel Fairmont Orthopedics & Sports Medicine, P.A.
Page  ASME 2013 Standards and Certification Training Module B – Process B7. The Appeals Process.
Kaplan University Online CJ101 Unit 8 Introduction to the Criminal Justice System.
Procedural Safeguards for Parents What Educators Should Know Michelle Mobley NELA Cohort III.
STATE BUILDING CODE Board of Appeals & Construction Supervisor License Complaints From the Denial Letter or Complaint From the Denial Letter or Complaint.
MARYLAND PAROLE COMMISSION AUGUST 31, RELEASE TYPES PAROLE MANDATORY SUPERVISED RELEASED (MSR) EXPIRATION OF SENTENCE.
Open Meetings, Public Records, Conflicts of Interest, EMC Bylaws, and Penalty Remissions* Jennie Wilhelm Hauser Special Deputy Attorney General Presentation.
Welcome to the Public Comment Hearing on the Proposed Regulatory Update to the California Environmental Quality Act AB 52, Gatto (2014) Heather Baugh Assistant.
BCJ 3150: Probation and Parole
Charter Amendments Revised 5/2017.
Mason County School District
Crouse Health Hospital
Probable Cause Process
Education Employment Procedures Law of 2001
ENROLLEE DUE PROCESS for Medicaid Managed CARE 42 CFR § 438 et seq.
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 CITY COUNCIL MEETING RESCIND RESOLUTION NO AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE RULES GOVERNING.
Probable Cause Process
SSA Adverse Decisions and Administrative Finality
Texas Secretary of State Elections Division
CHALLENGES TO VOTER REGISTRATION APPLICATIONS AND REGISTERED VOTERS
Determinate Petitions
Appeal Tutorial Date: Authors: July 2006 Month Year
THE SCHOOL SITE COUNCIL
Presentation transcript:

 George Bakerjian, Staff Attorney

Statutory Authority  “[A]ny decision of the parole panel finding an inmate suitable for parole shall become final within 120 days of the date of the hearing. During that period, the board may review the panel’s decision” – Penal Code §3041(b)

Regulatory Authority  “Proposed decisions made at hearings for prisoners serving a sentence of life with the possibility of parole may be reviewed by the chief counsel or a designee.” - California Code of Regulations, Title 15, §2041(h)  Grants  Grants of parole shall be reviewed by the chief counsel or a designee.  Denials  A random sample of parole denials, as determined by the Board, shall be reviewed by the chief counsel or a designee. - California Code of Regulations, Title 15, §2041(h)

 Inmate  An inmate may invoke decision review by sending correspondence to the Board expressly requesting decision review and including the reason for the request.  Must be requested before the proposed decision becomes final.  Board  Grants  The Board conducts decision review on all grants of parole and reviews all term calculations.  Denials  The Board conducts decision review on as many denials as resources permit.  The Board reviews all “Butler” term calculations (base and adjusted base terms)

 The panel’s decision shall become final “unless the board finds that the panel made an error of law, or that the panel’s decision was based on an error of fact, or that new information should be presented to the board, any of which when corrected or considered by the board has a substantial likelihood of resulting in a substantially different decision upon a rehearing.” – Penal Code §3041(b); California Code of Regulations, Title 15, §2042

 Timing Requirements  Within 110 days of the hearing, the chief counsel, or a designee, may: (i) affirm the proposed decision, (ii) order a new hearing, or (iii) modify the proposed decision without a new hearing. - California Code of Regulations, Title 15, §2041(h)

 Adverse Modifications – En Banc Review  No decision shall be modified without a new hearing if the decision would be adverse to the prisoner's interest.  In cases where the chief counsel recommends modification where the decision is adverse to the prisoner’s interest, the matter shall be referred to the full board for en banc review.  No proposed decision shall be referred for a new hearing without a majority vote of the board following a public hearing. - California Code of Regulations, Title 15, §2041(h)

 “No decision of the parole authority of this State with respect to the granting, denial, revocation, or suspension of parole of a person sentenced to an indeterminate term upon a conviction of murder shall become effective for a period of 30 days, during which the Governor may review the decision.”  “The Governor may only affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the parole authority on the basis of the same factors which the parole authority is required to consider.” – California Constitution, Article 5, Section 8, subdivision (b)

 “During the 30 days following the granting, denial, revocation, or suspension by a parole authority of the parole of a person sentenced to an indeterminate prison term based upon a conviction of murder, the Governor, when reviewing the authority’s decision pursuant to subdivision (b) of section 8 of Article V of the Constitution, shall review materials provided by the parole authority.” – Penal Code §3041.2(a)  “If the Governor decides to reverse or modify a parole decision of a parole authority pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 8 of Article V of the Constitution, he or she shall send a written statement to the inmate specifying the reasons for his or her decision.” – Penal Code §3041.2(b)

 “Up to 90 days prior to a scheduled release date, the Governor may request review of any decision by a parole authority concerning the grant or denial of parole to any inmate in state prison.” – Penal Code §3041.1

 There are two processes by which an inmate’s suitability hearing can be advanced after his/her initial hearing:  Petition to Advance (PTA) – Initiated by the inmate  Administrative Review (AR) – Initiated by the Board

 An inmate may request that the board exercise its discretion to advance a hearing following a denial of parole or stipulation (with a Marsy's law denial length) to an earlier date, by submitting a written request to the board. – Penal Code §3041.5(d)(1)  Standard  “A change in circumstances or new information that establishes a reasonable likelihood that consideration of the public safety does not require the additional period of incarceration of the inmate.” – Penal Code §3041.5(d)(1)

 Process  Upon request of a PTA, the Board will review the petition to ensure that it has jurisdiction to consider the petition.  If the Board has jurisdiction, then all victims will be notified of the petition and be given 30 days to offer their input.  Petition is then sent for substantive review by a hearing officer.  Limitation  The Board will only consider a subsequent PTA 3 years after the previous PTA was decided on the merits. – Penal Code §3041.5(d)(3)

 Sole Discretion  The Board has sole discretion to approve or deny a petition to advance a hearing date  Possible Outcomes  Approved  If the petition is approved, the inmate is either placed on the next available hearing calendar or the inmate’s denial length will be reduced (to another Marsy’s law denial length)  Denied  If the petition is denied, the inmate’s current denial length remains in tact and the inmate will be notified of the decision.

 The Board typically conducts administrative review on select 3-year denials.  Timing  Each month, the Board’s Special Processing Unit (SPU) screens-in cases for administrative review from the same month of the previous year (September 2015 denials will be screened-in for AR in September 2016)

 Screening Criteria  Hearing will not be advanced if:  Inmate has filed a PTA since his/her last hearing  An intervening hearing (court ordered or via decision review/en banc)  Violent 115 since last hearing  Inmate has a moderate-to-high or a high risk assessment score  Presence of new negative of confidential information

 Standard  Advancing a hearing date requires a reasonable likelihood that consideration of the public safety does not require the additional period of incarceration of the inmate.”

 Approved  If the hearing advancement is approved, the Board schedules the inmate’s hearing 18 months from his/her last hearing date (6 months after screen-in date).  Denied  If the hearing advancement is denied, the inmate’s current denial length remains in tact September 14, 2015 Inmate Moseley receives 3 year denial September 2016 Inmate Moseley’s case is screened by EAU March 2017 Inmate Moseley receives his advanced suitability hearing

George Bakerjian Staff Attorney Board of Parole Hearings Legal Hotline/Legal Officer of the Day