(a)The Elderly Parole Program is hereby established, to be administered by the Board of Parole Hearings, for purposes of reviewing the parole suitability of any inmate who is 50 years of age or older and has served a minimum of 20 years of continuous incarceration on the inmate’s current sentence, serving either a determinate or indeterminate sentence.
(b)(1)For purposes of this code, the term “elderly parole eligible date” means the date on which an inmate who qualifies as an elderly offender is eligible for release from prison.
(2)For purposes of this section, “incarceration” means detention in a city or county jail, local juvenile facility, a mental health facility, a
Division of Juvenile Justice facility, or a Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation facility.
(c)When considering the release of an inmate specified by subdivision (a) pursuant to Section 3041, the board shall give special consideration to whether age, time served, and diminished physical condition, if any, have reduced the elderly inmate’s risk for future violence.
(d)When scheduling a parole consideration hearing date pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 3041.5 or when considering a request for an advance hearing pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 3041.5, the board shall consider whether the inmate meets or will meet the criteria specified in subdivision (a).
(e)An individual who is subject to this section shall meet with the board pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 3041. If an inmate is found suitable for parole under the Elderly Parole Program, the board shall release the individual on parole as provided in Section 3041.
(f)If parole is not granted, the board shall set the time for a subsequent elderly parole hearing in accordance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 3041.5. No subsequent elderly parole hearing shall be necessary if the offender is released pursuant to other statutory provisions prior to the date of the subsequent hearing.
(g)This section does not apply to cases in which sentencing occurs pursuant to Section 1170.12, subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, of Section 667, or in cases which an individual was sentenced to life in prison
without the possibility of parole or death.
(h)This section does not apply if the person was convicted of first-degree murder if the victim was a peace officer, as defined in Section 830.1, 830.2, 830.3, 830.31, 830.32, 830.33, 830.34, 830.35, 830.36, 830.37, 830.4, 830.5, 830.6, 830.10, 830.11, or 830.12, who was killed while engaged in the performance of their duties, and the individual knew, or reasonably should have known, that the victim was a peace officer engaged in the performance of their duties, or the victim was a peace officer or a former peace officer under any of the above-enumerated sections, and was intentionally killed in retaliation for the performance of their official duties.
(i)This section does not alter the rights of victims at parole hearings.
(j)By December 31, 2022, the board shall
complete all elderly parole hearings for individuals who were sentenced to determinate or indeterminate terms and who, on the effective date of the bill that added this subdivision, are or will be entitled to have their parole suitability considered at an elderly parole hearing before January 1, 2023.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
16
cases (
9 in the last 5 years), 2018–2025 · leading case:
People v. Contreras, 411 P.3d 445 (Cal. 2018).
People v. Contreras, 411 P.3d 445 (Cal. 2018).
“Second, the alternative grounds for remand-to create a factual record regarding the operation of the recently enacted Elderly Parole Program ( Pen. Code, § 3055 ) 1 and the 2017 regulations issued by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation pursuant to article I, section…”
(HC) Williams v. Lynch, No. 2:20-cv-02491 (E.D. Cal. June 15, 2021).
· cites it 6× “1 at 11-12 (citing Cal. Penal Code § 3055 (g)); ECF No. 15-4.”
In re Shelton, No. A154983A (Cal. Ct. App. July 23, 2020).
· cites it 2× “(Pen. Code, § 3055.) Section 3055 provides that when considering the release of an “inmate who is 60 years of age or older and has served a minimum of 25 years of continuous incarceration,” “the board shall give special consideration to whether age, time served, and diminished…”
People v. Braley, 52 Cal. App. 5th 680 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 2× “) To this, the Elderly Parole Program provides that when the Board of Parole Hearings considers the release of an “inmate who is 60 years of age or older and has served a minimum of 25 years of continuous incarceration,” (Pen. Code, § 3055, subd. (a)) “the board shall give…”
In re Shelton, No. A154983M (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 24, 2020).
· cites it 2× “(Pen. Code, § 3055.) Section 3055 provides that when considering the release of an “inmate who is 60 years of age or older and has served a minimum of 25 years of continuous incarceration,” “the board shall give special consideration to whether age, time served, and diminished…”
In re Shelton, No. A154983 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2020).
“(Pen. Code, § 3055.) Section 3055 provides that when considering the release of an “inmate who is 60 years of age or older and has served a minimum of 25 years of continuous incarceration,” “the board shall give special consideration to whether age, time served, and diminished…”
In re Hoze, 275 Cal. Rptr. 3d 611 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021).
“SC207139A) When Johnnie Hoze was 67 years old, and after he had served nearly four decades in state prison on an indeterminate life sentence, the Board of Parole Hearings (“Board”) found him suitable for parole under the Elderly Parole Program (Pen. Code, § 3055).1 Before he…”
In re Van Houten, 92 Cal. App. 5th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023).
“(Pen. Code, §§ 3055, 4801.) In the case of youthful offenders, the Board “shall give great weight to the diminished culpability of youth as compared to adults, the hallmark features of youth, and any subsequent growth and increased maturity of the prisoner in accordance with…”
(HC) Coleman v. Baughman, No. 2:19-cv-01127 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2019).
“Furthermore, the 17 court specifically overruled two previous decisions in which the relief sought was not immediate 18 or earlier release: 19 By contrast, Skinner’s2 core-of-habeas standard is a well-tested one that does not require the sort of probabilistic analysis found in…”
(HC) Aviles v. Sullivan, No. 1:19-cv-01389 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2020).
“) On February 7, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued an 26 order to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed due to petitioner’s failure to first 27 exhaust his claims by presenting them to the highest state court.”
(PC) Stevens v. Smith, No. 1:22-cv-00741 (E.D. Cal. July 26, 2022).
“Cal. Penal Code § 3055 (b). 27 28 1 confinement, however, may be brought under § 1983.”
(PC) Stevens v. Smith, No. 1:22-cv-00741 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2022).
“On January 1, 2021, a modification was made based on the inmate’s age of 50 years old and older who have been incarcerated for at least 20 years. Under the 12 statutory Elderly Parole Program the inmate may be serving an indeterminate or a 13 determinate sentence.”
Cal. Penal Code § 3055(a): 1 case
(HC) Coleman v. Baughman, No. 2:19-cv-01127 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2019).
“Furthermore, the 17 court specifically overruled two previous decisions in which the relief sought was not immediate 18 or earlier release: 19 By contrast, Skinner’s2 core-of-habeas standard is a well-tested one that does not require the sort of probabilistic analysis found in…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.