Opinion ID: 3179275
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Lack of Annual Comprehensive Risk Assessments

Text: As to some inmates whose mental condition is a factor as to their suitability for parole, a psychological report, the CRA, is prepared only once every five years by Stateemployed personnel. Since the CRA is prepared only every five years, the district court found that a PTA would not be granted where the inmate had a psychological component to be evaluated to determine his suitability. It quoted Gilman’s summation that “any prisoner who is denied parole in part because of the CRA has no chance of obtaining an advanced hearing.” This finding was in error for two reasons. First, nothing prohibits a prisoner from procuring his own CRA using private resources. Second, the State points out that a CRA is not required for a PTA; the inmate-petitioner can address whatever issues were in his previous CRA through a personal statement to the Board, self-help programming, or evidence other than a psychological report. 17 To the contrary, Nguyen’s PTA denial and the two others referenced by the district court suggest that the decisionmaker reviewed the PTAs and determined that the inmates were not suitable for parole in light of the reasons given by the Board for denying parole at the prior hearing. Cf. Morales, 514 U.S. at 507 (holding that a statutory change did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause when it “introduced the possibility that after the initial parole hearing, the Board would not have to hold another hearing the very next year, or the year after that, if it found no reasonable probability that respondent would be deemed suitable for parole in the interim period” and was passed “merely to relieve the Board from the costly and time-consuming responsibility of scheduling parole hearings for prisoners who have no reasonable chance of being released” (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). GILMAN V. BROWN 29