Opinion ID: 844231
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Summary of Principles Governing Review of Parole Decisions

Text: We are well aware that the Court of Appeal below was not alone in its confusion about the proper scope of review. Uncertainty is reflected in numerous Court of Appeal decisions reviewing parole suitability determinations. Accordingly, we briefly summarize the relevant considerations:
2. That question is posed first to the Board and then to the Governor, who draw their answers from the entire record, including the facts of the offense, the inmate's progress during incarceration, and the insight he or she has achieved into past behavior. 3. The inmate has a right to decline to participate in psychological evaluation and in the hearing itself. That decision may not be held against the inmate. Equally, however, it may not limit the Board or the Governor in their evaluation of all the evidence. 4. Judicial review is conducted under the highly deferential some evidence standard. The executive decision of the Board or the Governor is upheld unless it is arbitrary or procedurally flawed. The court reviews the entire record to determine whether a modicum of evidence supports the parole suitability decision. 5. The reviewing court does not ask whether the inmate is currently dangerous. That question is reserved for the executive branch. Rather, the court considers whether there is a rational nexus between the evidence and the ultimate determination of current dangerousness. The court is not empowered to reweigh the evidence.