Parole.

The California Constitution authorizes the Governor to affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the Board of Parole Hearings with respect to the granting, denial, revocation, or suspension of parole of a person sentenced to an indeterminate term upon conviction of murder. Existing law classifies certain felonies as violent felonies for purposes of various provisions of the Penal Code. This bill would additionally authorize the Governor to reverse or modify the decision of the board to grant parole to an inmate sentenced for conviction of a violent felony to an indeterminate prison term, as specified, or to a determinate prison term, as specified, if the board's decision is to grant the inmate parole pursuant to the Elderly Parole Program or youth offender parole program. Existing law requires the Board of Parole Hearings to meet with each indeterminately sentenced inmate during the 6th year before the inmate's minimum eligible parole date for the purpose of reviewing and documenting the inmate's activities and conduct pertinent to parole eligibility. One year before the inmate's eligible parole date, existing law requires a panel of the board to meet with the inmate and to grant parole unless the panel or board sitting en banc determines that the gravity of the current convicted offense, or the timing and gravity of current or past convicted offenses, is such that consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration for the inmate. Existing law, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, requires, with specified exceptions, that all meetings of a state body be open and public and all persons be permitted to attend. Existing law authorizes certain state bodies to hold closed session meetings for certain purposes, including allowing a state body to hold a closed session when considering and acting upon the determination of a term, parole, or release of any individual or other disposition of an individual case. This bill would require the board to provide an annual report to the Legislature, and publish that report on its internet website, detailing, among other things, the voting record of commissioners, as specified, and whether the prosecuting agency appeared at the parole hearing. The bill would also require recording of parole, en banc, and rescission hearings to be recorded and transcribed, and the recording retained indefinitely by the board. The bill would prohibit an en banc review conducted by the board from being held in a closed session. Existing law, as amended by Proposition 9, the Victim's Bill of Rights Act of 2008: Marsy's Law, at the November 4, 2008, statewide general election, requires the board, following a decision denying parole, to schedule the next hearing 3, 5, 7, 10, or 15 years from the date of the last hearing, as specified. Existing law also authorizes the board, in its discretion and after considering the views and interests of the victim, to advance a hearing to an earlier date, when a change in circumstances or new information establishes a reasonable likelihood that consideration of the public and victim's safety does not require additional incarceration. Existing law authorizes an inmate, every 3 years, to request that the board exercise its discretion to advance a hearing and provides the procedure for an inmate to make that request. This bill would require the Board of Parole Hearings, in determining suitability for parole, to consider specified information and give substantial weight to the nature and circumstances of the commitment offense that includes, among other things, the degree of violence involved and the vulnerability of the victim. The bill would change the length of time between requests to advance to 5 years and would also change the inmate's burden to require the inmate to show that there has been a material and substantial change in circumstances or new information. The bill would require the board to provide notice of a request to advance to the prosecuting agency and registered victim, and would authorize the board to summarily deny a request to advance in certain circumstances, including when the request is duplicative or repetitive or fails to include sufficient documentation or explanation. The bill would require the board to set a hearing, following a decision denying parole, at 5 years if the inmate is serving a term of conviction for, among other things, murder involving a victim 14 years of age or younger, or various sexual offenses involving a victim 14 years of age or younger. The bill would require that the board deny a request to advance for an individual serving a term for those offenses, unless the request demonstrates clear and convincing evidence of a material and substantial change in circumstances. These provisions would become operative only if Assembly Constitutional Amendment ____ of the 2025–26 Regular Session, amending Section 8 of Article V of the Constitution, is approved by the voters at the November 3, 2026, statewide election. The bill would make related findings and declarations and would declare that its provisions are severable.