14 California opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re Rosenkrantzgreen2 sentences2011Code, § 3041; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, §§ 2402 [parole consideration criteria for murders committed after Nov. 8, 1978], 2281 [parole consideration guidelines for life prisoners].) Judicial review of the Governor’s decision is limited to a determination of whether the decision is supported by “ ‘some evidence.’ ” (In re Rosenkrantz, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 625 .) This standard of review is extremely deferential. 2010The Governor shall report to the Legislature each parole decision affirmed, modified, or reversed, stating the pertinent facts and reasons for the action." The statutory procedures governing the Governor's review of a parole decision are set forth in section 3041.2, which states: "(a) During the 30 days following the granting, denial, revocation, or suspension by a parole authority of the parole of a person sentenced to an indeterminate prison term based upon a conviction of murder, the Governor, when reviewing the authority's decision pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 8 of Article V of t | 1 | 6 |
In Re Ramirezgreen2 sentences2005Article V, section 8(b), further states: ‘The Governor may only affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the parole authority on the basis of the same factors which the parole authority is required to consider.’ ” (Rosenkrantz, at p. 660, italics added by the Rosenkrantz court; see In re Ramirez (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 549, 559-560 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 381 ], disapproved on other grounds in In re Dannenberg (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1061, 1100 [ 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 417 , 104 P.3d 783 ].) “As with the discretion exercised by the Board in making its decision, the precise manner in which the specified factors re 2005Article V, section 8(b), further states: ‘The Governor may only affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the parole authority on the basis of the same factors which the parole authority is required to consider.’ ” (Rosenkrantz, at p. 660, italics added by the Rosenkrantz court; see In re Ramirez (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 549, 559-560 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 381 ], disapproved on other grounds in In re Dannenberg (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1061, 1100 [ 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 417 , 104 P.3d 783 ].) “As with the discretion exercised by the Board in making its decision, the precise manner in which the specified factors re | 1 | 3 |
In re Shaputisgreen1 sentence2013The Governor shall report to the Legislature each parole decision affirmed, modified, or reversed, stating the pertinent facts and reasons for the action.” The statutory procedures governing the Governor’s review of a parole decision pursuant to article V, section 8, subdivision (b), of the California Constitution are set forth in Penal Code section 3041.2, which states: “(a) During the 30 days following the 6 granting, denial, revocation, or suspension by a parole authority of the parole of a person sentenced to an indeterminate prison term based upon a conviction of murder, the Governor, whe | 1 | 1 |
In Re Faingreen2 sentences2010The Governor shall report to the Legislature each parole decision affirmed, modified, or reversed, stating the pertinent facts and reasons for the action." The statutory procedures governing the Governor's review of a parole decision are set forth in section 3041.2, which states: "(a) During the 30 days following the granting, denial, revocation, or suspension by a parole authority of the parole of a person sentenced to an indeterminate prison term based upon a conviction of murder, the Governor, when reviewing the authority's decision pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 8 of Article V of t 2010The Governor shall report to the Legislature each parole decision affirmed, modified, or reversed, stating the pertinent facts and reasons for the action." The statutory procedures governing the Governor's review of a parole decision are set forth in section 3041.2, which states: "(a) During the 30 days following the granting, denial, revocation, or suspension by a parole authority of the parole of a person sentenced to an indeterminate prison term based upon a conviction of murder, the Governor, when reviewing the authority's decision pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 8 of Article V of t | 1 | 1 |
In Re Prathergreen1 sentence2010The Governor shall report to the Legislature each parole decision affirmed, modified, or reversed, stating the pertinent facts and reasons for the action.’ “The statutory procedures governing the Governor’s review of a parole decision are set forth in [Penal Code] section 3041.2, which states: ‘(a) During the 30 days following the granting, denial, revocation, or suspension by a parole authority of the parole of a person sentenced to an indeterminate prison term based upon a conviction of murder, the Governor, when reviewing the authority’s decision pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 8 of | 1 | 1 |
In Re Graygreen2 sentences2009V, § 8, subd. (b) [the Governor may only affirm, modify or reverse the Board’s decision ‘on the basis of the same factors which the parole authority is required to consider’].) Since we have reviewed the materials that were before the Board and found no evidence to support a decision other than the one reached by the Board, a remand to the Governor in this case would amount to an idle act.” (In re Smith, supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at pp. 506-507.) Smith does not help Masoner because the parole decision being reversed here was made by the Board, not the Governor, and the Board’s authority in making 2009V, § 8, subd. (b) [the Governor may only affirm, modify or reverse the Board’s decision ‘on the basis of the same factors which the parole authority is required to consider’].) Since we have reviewed the materials that were before the Board and found no evidence to support a decision other than the one reached by the Board, a remand to the Governor in this case would amount to an idle act.” (In re Smith, supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at pp. 506-507.) Smith does not help Masoner because the parole decision being reversed here was made by the Board, not the Governor, and the Board’s authority in making | 1 | 1 |
Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complexgreen2 sentences2007Whether a prison inmate is entitled to release on parole is an inherently subjective determination (Rosenkrantz, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 655; Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates (1979) 442 U.S. 1, 9 [ 60 L.Ed.2d 668 , 99 S.Ct. 2100 ]) that should be guided by a number of fáctors, some objective, identified in section 3041 and in the Board’s regulations.' (Regs., §§ 2281, 2402.)* * 6 “The Governor may only affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the parole authority on the basis of the same factors which the parole authority is required to consider.” (Cal. Const., art. 2007Whether a prison inmate is entitled to release on parole is an inherently subjective determination (Rosenkrantz, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 655; Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates (1979) 442 U.S. 1, 9 [ 60 L.Ed.2d 668 , 99 S.Ct. 2100 ]) that should be guided by a number of fáctors, some objective, identified in section 3041 and in the Board’s regulations.' (Regs., §§ 2281, 2402.)* * 6 “The Governor may only affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the parole authority on the basis of the same factors which the parole authority is required to consider.” (Cal. Const., art. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Dannenberggreen2 sentences2005Article V, section 8(b), further states: ‘The Governor may only affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the parole authority on the basis of the same factors which the parole authority is required to consider.’ ” (Rosenkrantz, at p. 660, italics added by the Rosenkrantz court; see In re Ramirez (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 549, 559-560 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 381 ], disapproved on other grounds in In re Dannenberg (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1061, 1100 [ 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 417 , 104 P.3d 783 ].) “As with the discretion exercised by the Board in making its decision, the precise manner in which the specified factors re 2005Article V, section 8(b), further states: ‘The Governor may only affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the parole authority on the basis of the same factors which the parole authority is required to consider.’ ” (Rosenkrantz, at p. 660, italics added by the Rosenkrantz court; see In re Ramirez (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 549, 559-560 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 381 ], disapproved on other grounds in In re Dannenberg (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1061, 1100 [ 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 417 , 104 P.3d 783 ].) “As with the discretion exercised by the Board in making its decision, the precise manner in which the specified factors re | 1 | 1 |
In Re Sturmgreen2 sentences2002To the contrary, Proposition 89, which compels the Governor to make his decision "on the basis of the same factors which the parole authority is required to consider" (§ 8(b)), "simply allows for an additional level of discretionary review of parole decisions regarding murderers serving an indeterminate life sentence." ( In re Arafiles, supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1484-1485, 8 Cal. Rptr.2d 492 .) Judicial review by habeas corpus remains available to a life prisoner who wishes to challenge the Governor's decision on the ground that it is arbitrary *78 and capricious. ( Id. at p. 1481, 8 Cal. Rp 2002To the contrary, Proposition 89, which compels the Governor to make his decision "on the basis of the same factors which the parole authority is required to consider" (§ 8(b)), "simply allows for an additional level of discretionary review of parole decisions regarding murderers serving an indeterminate life sentence." ( In re Arafiles, supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1484-1485, 8 Cal. Rptr.2d 492 .) Judicial review by habeas corpus remains available to a life prisoner who wishes to challenge the Governor's decision on the ground that it is arbitrary *78 and capricious. ( Id. at p. 1481, 8 Cal. Rp | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Arafiles
green
2 sentences2002To the contrary, Proposition 89, which compels the Governor to make his decision "on the basis of the same factors which the parole authority is required to consider" (§ 8(b)), "simply allows for an additional level of discretionary review of parole decisions regarding murderers serving an indeterminate life sentence." ( In re Arafiles, supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1484-1485, 8 Cal. Rptr.2d 492 .) Judicial review by habeas corpus remains available to a life prisoner who wishes to challenge the Governor's decision on the ground that it is arbitrary *78 and capricious. ( Id. at p. 1481, 8 Cal. Rp 2002To the contrary, Proposition 89, which compels the Governor to make his decision "on the basis of the same factors which the parole authority is required to consider" (§ 8(b)), "simply allows for an additional level of discretionary review of parole decisions regarding murderers serving an indeterminate life sentence." ( In re Arafiles, supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1484-1485, 8 Cal. Rptr.2d 492 .) Judicial review by habeas corpus remains available to a life prisoner who wishes to challenge the Governor's decision on the ground that it is arbitrary *78 and capricious. ( Id. at p. 1481, 8 Cal. Rp | 2 | 2002–2002 |
In re Lawrence
green
1 sentence2021(Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1204 .) If the Governor reverses or modifies a Board decision, the Governor must “send a written statement to the inmate specifying the reasons for his or her decision.” (Pen. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In Re Smith
green
1 sentence2009V, § 8, subd. (b) [the Governor may only affirm, modify or reverse the Board’s decision ‘on the basis of the same factors which the parole authority is required to consider’].) Since we have reviewed the materials that were before the Board and found no evidence to support a decision other than the one reached by the Board, a remand to the Governor in this case would amount to an idle act.” (In re Smith, supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at pp. 506-507.) Smith does not help Masoner because the parole decision being reversed here was made by the Board, not the Governor, and the Board’s authority in making | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Conklin Wallace v. Robert Christensen
green
1 sentence2002The Governor shall report to the Legislature each parole decision affirmed, modified, or reversed, stating the pertinent facts and reasons for the action." (Emphasis added.) [4] As the superior court put it, "[i]f the people who enacted Article V, Section 8, had intended to make such a discretion absolute and unfettered, thus permitting the Governor to act arbitrarily and capriciously, then they should have done so by a very plain expression of that intent." [5] As the Governor puts it, he may deny clemency for any constitutionally acceptable reason "or for no reason at all." As the Supreme Co | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Connecticut Board of Pardons v. Dumschat
green
2 sentences2002The Governor shall report to the Legislature each parole decision affirmed, modified, or reversed, stating the pertinent facts and reasons for the action." (Emphasis added.) [4] As the superior court put it, "[i]f the people who enacted Article V, Section 8, had intended to make such a discretion absolute and unfettered, thus permitting the Governor to act arbitrarily and capriciously, then they should have done so by a very plain expression of that intent." [5] As the Governor puts it, he may deny clemency for any constitutionally acceptable reason "or for no reason at all." As the Supreme Co 2002The Governor shall report to the Legislature each parole decision affirmed, modified, or reversed, stating the pertinent facts and reasons for the action." (Emphasis added.) [4] As the superior court put it, "[i]f the people who enacted Article V, Section 8, had intended to make such a discretion absolute and unfettered, thus permitting the Governor to act arbitrarily and capriciously, then they should have done so by a very plain expression of that intent." [5] As the Governor puts it, he may deny clemency for any constitutionally acceptable reason "or for no reason at all." As the Supreme Co | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Board of Pardons v. Allen
green
2 sentences2002(See Board of Pardons v. Allen (1987) 482 U.S. 369, 375 , 107 S.Ct. 2415 , 96 L.Ed.2d 303 ; and see In re Ramirez, supra, 94 Cal. App.4th at p. 560 , 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 381 .) The Governor's references to the ballot arguments in support of Proposition 89 add nothing. 2002(See Board of Pardons v. Allen (1987) 482 U.S. 369, 375 , 107 S.Ct. 2415 , 96 L.Ed.2d 303 ; and see In re Ramirez, supra, 94 Cal. App.4th at p. 560 , 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 381 .) The Governor's references to the ballot arguments in support of Proposition 89 add nothing. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.