Court Opinion

ID: 9741734
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:01:06.935385+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:25.721282
License: Public Domain

YETKA, Justice
(dissenting).
The state of California had an issue similar to this in the case of In re Minnis, 7 Cal.3d 639, 102 Cal.Rptr. 749, 498 P.2d 997 (1972). In Minnis the court held that a categorical denial of consideration for release at the beginning of a term violated the spirit of California’s indeterminate sentencing law.
The present case presents a less extreme case than Minnis. Taylor was told at her first hearing that her institutional behavior could have some effect on parole eligibility. However, once her “target release date” was assigned, the record indicates that no additional institutional behavior would be considered in the paper review provided.
If the matrix system is used to assign parole release dates which then foreclose any practical possibility of the board’s considering institutional behavior, the board may be seen as violating the express mandate of Minn.St. 243.06. This statute provides:
“Each prisoner shall be credited for good prison demeanor, diligence in labor and study and results accomplished, and be charged for derelictions, negligences, and offenses under such uniform system of marks or other methods as shall be prescribed by the commissioner of corrections. He shall be informed of his standing under such system each month. The commissioner of corrections shall inform the corrections board of the work progress, derelictions, negligences, demeanor and future program of each inmate of the penal institutions a month before his regular appearance before the corrections board.”
This statute follows Minn.St. 243.05, which empowers the corrections board to grant parole. If the two are considered together, they arguably prevent the board from refusing to consider institutional behavior at any point.1 If, after 14 months, the board tells a prisoner that her target release date is a set time in the future and that it cannot *621be reduced (but may be increased) by institutional behavior, the board is failing to exercise the discretion given it by Minn.St. §§ 243.05 and 243.06.
I believe also that the alleged sex discrimination issue has merit because of the indications that women have a lower recidivism rate than do men. Since the record in this case is inadequate to fully substantiate the claim, it seems appropriate to send the case back for additional testimony on this issue. Accordingly, I would remand the case back for further testimony on both issues raised in this dissent.

. See, also, Minn.St. 609.12, subd. 2, which bases parole eligibility, in part, on rehabilitation.