Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 13-8-14.1 (2026)

Parole standards

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) At least once each calendar year the parole board shall adopt standards to be utilized by the board in evaluating applications for parole of persons convicted of a criminal offense and sentenced to the adult correctional institutions. These standards shall establish, with the range of parole eligibility set by statute, the portion of a sentence which should be served depending on the likelihood of recidivism as determined by a risk assessment, and shall serve as guidelines for the board in making individual parole determinations.

(b) The board shall consider the applicable standard prior to rendering a decision on a parole application, and may make a determination at variance with that standard only upon a finding that the determination is warranted by individualized factors, such as the character, criminal history, and attitudes of the applicant that bear on the likelihood to reoffend, the conduct of the applicant while incarcerated, including meaningful participation in a risk-reducing program and substantial compliance with the rules of the institution, and risk-reducing behavior and the criteria set forth in § 13-8-14. “Risk-reducing program” means a program that adheres to those elements that are shown in research to reduce recidivism.

(c) In each case where the board grants an application prior to the time set by the applicable standard or denies an application on or after the time set by that standard, the board shall set forth in writing the rationale for its determination.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1983–2019 · leading case: Lerner v. Gill, 463 A.2d 1352 (R.I. 1983).
Lerner v. Gill, 463 A.2d 1352 (R.I. 1983). · cites it 2× “1956 (1981 Reenactment) § 13-8-14.1. This legislation now requires the parole board to adopt, at least annually, specific criteria by which it will evaluate applications for parole.”
Bishop v. State, 667 A.2d 275 (R.I. 1995). · cites it 3× “1956 (1994 Reenactment) § 13-8-14.1, he had a cognizable liberty interest in his contingent parole release date and that “[t]he resicion [sic ] of applicant’s parole of February 19, 1993, is otherwise subject to collateral attack upon ground of alleged error heretofore available…”
Skawinski v. State, 538 A.2d 1006 (R.I. 1988). · cites it 3× “The Legislature vested the parole board with authority to adopt these new guidelines through its enactment of § 13-8-14.1, as amended by P.L. 1982, ch.”
State v. Tillinghast, 609 A.2d 217 (R.I. 1992). · cites it 2× “1956 (1981 Reenactment) § 13-8-14.1, as amended by P.L. 1982, ch.”
Petrarca v. Rhode Island, 583 F. Supp. 297 (D.R.I. 1984). · cites it 17× “However, since the statute analyzed in these decisions is no longer in effect, see note 1 supra, and since there has been an addition to the parole release scheme, R.I. Gen.Laws § 13-8-14.1 (enacted 1982), this Court must undertake an independent analysis of whether the Rhode…”
Estrada v. Walker, 743 A.2d 1026 (R.I. 1999). “The Legislature vested the parole board with authority to adopt these new guidelines through its enactment of § 13-8-14.1, as amended by P.L.1982, ch. 375, § 1 which provides as follows: ‘At least once each calendar year commencing on January 1, 1983, the parole board shall…”
State v. Acquisto, 619 A.2d 428 (R.I. 1993). “1956 (1981 Reenactment) § 13-8-14.1, as enacted by P.L. 1982, ch.”
State v. Stephen Mattatall (R.I. 2019). “We observe that, once defendant began the parole process, the reasons for which the parole board denied parole are in line with the board’s standards for evaluating parole applications in accordance with § 13-8-14.1, and accurately mirror the statutory release criteria set forth…”
Vega v. Vose, 909 F. Supp. 76 (D.R.I. 1995). · cites it 2× “It is undisputed that the Parole Board had the power and authority pursuant to R.I.Gen. Laws § 13-8-14.1 to promulgate a regulation that postponed the early parole eligibility date of an escapee.”
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.