ENDNOTES

^{1 The Board performs a variety of additional functions for the adult inmate population, including hearings for offenders with mental health disorders, screenings for sexually violent predators, international prisoner transfers, and investigations for gubernatorial pardons and commutations of sentence. In addition, the Board determines when long-term offenders are discharged from parole and initiates extradition proceedings for certain persons who escape or abscond from parole and are apprehended outside of California.}

^{2 There were 8,091 parole hearing grants 2010 through 2019; 3,680 approvals for release of determinately-sentenced nonviolent offenders under Proposition 57 (July 2017 through September 2020); 4,336 determinately-sentenced nonviolent second striker inmates approved for release under the parole consideration process ordered by the Three-Judge Panel in the Plata/Coleman class action litigation (January 2015 through June 2017).
3 Recidivism is defined as any new misdemeanor or felony conviction for an offense committed during the three years following release. Recidivism rates are discussed in more detail later in this report.}

^{4 Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (a).
5 Pen. Code, §§ 3041, subd. (c), 5075, subd. (b).
6 Pen. Code, § 3041.7
7 Pen. Code, §§ 3043 – 3043.3.
8 Pen. Code, § 3041.5, subd. (a)(3).}

^{9 Pen. Code, § 3041.5, subd. (d).
10 Pen. Code, § 3041.5, subd. (b)(4).
11 Penal Code section 3041, subdivision (a) states the Board “shall normally grant parole.” However, subdivision (b) of the same section states the Board “shall grant parole to an inmate unless it determines that the gravity of the current convicted offense or offenses, or the timing and gravity of current or past convicted offense or offenses, is such that consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration for this individual.” This language has been the subject of numerous published decisions, including In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181 and In re Shaputis (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1241 in which the Supreme Court clarified in 2008 that the central question for the Board when determining parole is whether the inmate poses a current unreasonable risk of danger to the public.
12 15 CCR § 2281, subd. (b).
13 15 CCR § 2281, subd. (d).
14 Pen. Code, § 4801.
15 15 CCR § 2281, subd. (c).}

^{16 In re Shaputis (2011) 53 Cal.4th 192, 219.
17 Pen. Code, § 4801(c).
18 15 CCR § 2445(d).
19 Pen. Code, § 3055.
20 The HCR-20 was developed to help structure decisions about violence risk (based on static and dynamic risk factors) and it has become the most widely used and best validated violence risk assessment instrument in the world. It has been translated into 20 languages and adopted or evaluated in more than 35 countries. The PCL-R, although not a risk assessment instrument per se, is the most researched and most widely administered assessment of dissocial or psychopathic personality characteristics associated with violent and sexual offending. The Static-99R is the State Approved Risk Assessment Tool for Sex Offenders (SARATSO) in California. The Static-99R is administered to provide a baseline estimate of risk for violent and sexual reconviction among offenders who have committed sex crimes. It is the most researched and most widely administered assessment of sexual offending risk. All three instruments were developed to have widespread applicability in correctional and forensic settings, have been cross-validated across many types of offender samples, and have been in use for more than 25 years.}

^{21 Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (b)(2).
22 Pen. Code § 3041, subd. (b)(2).
23 En banc review is a review conducted by a majority of the commissioners holding office on the date the matter is heard by the Board. (Pen. Code § 3041, subd. (e)).}

^{24 A sentence of 25 years-to-life is an example of an indeterminate sentence of “life with the possibility of parole” and the person would have to serve a minimum of 25 years, less any applicable credits, before the person was eligible for a parole hearing.
25 As of October 12, 2020.}

^{26 “Controlling offense” is defined as an offense or enhancement for which any sentencing court imposed the longest term of imprisonment. (Pen. Code, § 3051, subd. (a)(2)(B)).
27 Pen. Code, § 3051, subd. (b); 15 CCR §§ 3492-3497. In 2014, persons who were under the age of 18 when they committed their controlling offense were eligible for a youth offender parole hearing. (Ch. 312, Statutes of 2014). In 2016, eligibility was extended to persons who were under the age of 23 when they committed their controlling offense. (Ch. 471, Statutes of 2016). In 2018 eligibility was extended to persons who were under the age of 26 at the time of their controlling offense. (Ch. 675, Statutes of 2018).
28 The following persons are excluded: persons sentenced under the Three Strikes Law (with the exception of one-strike offenders due to People v. Edwards (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 183), persons sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for crimes they committed while over the age of 18, and persons who, after turning age 26, commit an additional crime for which malice aforethought is a necessary element of the crime or for which the individual is sentenced to life in prison. (Pen. Code, § 3051, subd. (h)).
29 Ch. 684, Statutes of 2018; Pen. Code, § 3051, subd. (b)(4).
30 Currently, Penal Code section 3055 applies to inmates who are age 60 and who have served 25 years. Effective January 1, 2021, Penal Code section 3055 will be amended and persons age 50 and who have served 20 years of incarceration will be eligible for parole hearing by December 31, 2022. (Ch. 334, Statutes of 2020).
31 The following persons are excluded: persons sentenced under the Three Strikes Law, persons convicted of first degree murder of a peace officer, and persons sentenced to life without the possibility of parole or condemned. (Pen. Code § 3055(g), (h).)}

^{32 Persons who are condemned, sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, sentenced under the Three Strikes Law, or convicted of first degree murder of a peace officer killed in the performance of their duties are not eligible for an elderly parole hearing under Penal Code section 3055. If the court order is dismissed, elderly parole will be governed by Penal Code section 3055 and elderly parole will no longer apply to inmates sentenced under the Three Strikes Law or who are convicted of murdering a peace officer. (Plata v. Brown, USDC ND Cal. No. 01-1351 TEH, Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant’s Request for Extension of December 31, 2013 Deadline (ECF No. 2766); Ch. 676, Statutes of 2017; Ch. 334, Statutes of 2020.
33 In re Edwards, (20190 26 Cal.App.5th 2081; holding nonviolent parole includes indeterminately-sentenced persons and their primary offense shall be calculated by taking the maximum term applicable by statute to the underlying nonviolent offense. (15 CCR § 3495, subd. (d); 15 CCR §§ 3492-3497, 2449.30-2449.34.)
34 As of October 12, 2020.}

^{35 In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181; In re Shaputis (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1241.
36 Pen. Code, §§ 3043, 3043.1, 3043.3.
37 Pen. Code, § 3043, subd. (d).}

^{38 Pen. Code, §§ 3043, 3043.1, 3043.3.
39 The California Supreme Court has held that “the passage of time, during which the Board may expect positive changes in the prisoner’s maturity, understanding, and mental state, is a changed circumstance.” (In re Vicks (2013) 56 Cal.4th 274, 305.)
40 Pen. Code, §§ 3041.5, subd. (d)(1); 3043.}

^{41 15 CCR §§ 2150-2157.
42 Garner v. Jones (2000) 529 U.S. 244, p. 254.
43 State and federal courts have held that Marsy’s Law does not impose an ex post facto punishment on inmates, on its face or as applied. (In re Vicks, supra 56 Cal.4th 274, 317; Gilman v. Brown (2016) 814 F.3d 1007.)
44 15 CCR §§ 2150-2157.}

^{45 CDCR classifies felony as property crimes, drug/alcohol crimes, crimes against persons, and “other” felony crimes.}

^{46 Persons who present as a moderate risk pose an elevated risk relative to long-term parolees and non-elevated or below average to average risk relative to shorter-term parolees released without discretion; persons who present as a high risk pose an elevated risk relative to long-term parolees and average to above average risk relative to shorter-term parolees released without discretion.}

^{47 The fee of $750 per assignment was based on an average reimbursement rate from 12 county criminal defender’s fee schedules applicable in cases when the Public Defender has a conflict and the level of representation is similar to that expected of counsel in a parole hearing.}

^{48 15 CCR §§ 3490-3491; 15 CCR §§ 2449.1-2449.7.
49 15 CCR §§ 3490-3491.
50 15 CCR §§ 2449.4, 2449.5.
51 15 CCR § 2449.4.
52 15 CCR §§ 3490, 3491.
53 Cal. Const., art. I, § 32, subd. (a)(1)(A); 15 CCR § 3490, subd. (d).}

^{54 15 CCR § 3490, subds. (a), (c).
55 15 CCR § 3491, subd. (b)(3).
56 15 CCR § 3491, subds. (c), (d).
57 15 CCR § 3490, subd. (f).
58 15 CCR § 3491, subd. (f).
59 15 CCR § 3491, subd. (g).
60 15 CCR § 3492, subd. (a).
61 15 CCR § 3492, subd. (c).
62 15 CCR § 3492, subd. (d).
63 15 CCR § 3492, subd. (c).
64 15 CCR § 2449.3, subd. (a).}

^{65 15 CCR § 2449.3, subd. (a).
66 15 CCR § 2449.3, subd. (b).
67 15 CCR § 2449.4, subd. (a).
68 15 CCR § 2449.4, subd. (a).
69 15 CCR §§ 2449.4, subds. (b), (c), 2449.5.}

^{70 15 CCR § 2449.5.
71 15 CCR § 2449.4, subd. (d).
72 15 CCR § 2449.4, subd. (f).
73 15 CCR § 3493.
74 15 CCR § 2449.4, subd. (h).
75 15 CCR § 2449.4, subd. (d).
76 15 CCR § 2449.7.}