The Virginia Parole Board shall by regulation divide each calendar year into such equal parts as it may deem appropriate to the efficient administration of the parole system. Unless there be reasonable cause for extension of the time within which to review and decide a case, the Board shall review and decide the case of each prisoner no later than that part of the calendar year in which he becomes eligible for parole, and at least annually thereafter, until he is released on parole or discharged, except that upon any such review the Board may schedule the next review as much as three years thereafter, provided there are 10 years or more or life imprisonment remaining on the sentence in such case; however, in the case of those prisoners eligible for parole pursuant to subsection F of § 53.1-165.1, such review shall be conducted annually. Such reviews shall include a live interview of the prisoner by a Board member or a staff member designated by the Board. Such interviews may be conducted in person or by videoconference or telephone at the discretion of the Board. Absent imminent death of the prisoner or other extraordinary circumstances, which shall be documented by the Board in the prisoner's file, the Board shall not grant parole to any prisoner who has not received a live interview within the prior calendar year. Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, in the case of a parole revocation, if such person is otherwise eligible for parole, the Board shall review and decide his case no later than that part of the calendar year one year subsequent to the part of the calendar year in which he was returned to a facility as provided in § 53.1-161. Thereafter, his case shall be reviewed as specified in this section. The Board, in addition, may review the case of any prisoner eligible for parole at any other time and may review the case of any prisoner prior to that part of the year otherwise specified. In the discretion of the Board, interviews may be conducted by the Board or its representatives and may be either public or private.
Code 1950, §§ 53-252, 53-254; 1966, c. 638; 1970, c. 648; 1977, c. 34; 1982, c. 636; 1984, c. 655; 2023, cc. 805, 806; 2026, cc. 984, 1046.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases (
8 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case:
Grimm v. Jackson, 849 F. Supp. 1127 (W.D. Va. 1994).
Grimm v. Jackson, 849 F. Supp. 1127 (W.D. Va. 1994).
· cites it 27× “Unless there be reasonable cause for extension of the time within which to review and decide a case, the Board shall review and decide the case of each prisoner no later than that part of the calendar year in which he becomes eligible for parole, and at least annually…”
Jennings v. Parole Bd. of Virginia, 61 F. Supp. 2d 462 (E.D. Va. 1999).
· cites it 6× “On a collateral point, petitioner attacks the validity of a Parole Board deferral policy, enacted pursuant to Va.Code § 53.1-154, which authorizes the Parole Board to defer parole review for up to three years for certain categories of inmates, including those serving life…”
Parker v. VA Parole, No. 1:23-cv-00151 (E.D. Va. Oct. 28, 2024).
· cites it 11× “§ 2254 asserting the VPB violated his due process rights and violated Virginia Code § 53.1-154 by deferring his next conditional geriatric release hearing for three years, on February 25, 2019 and January 16, 2023.”
Jackson v. West, No. 3:24-cv-00120 (E.D. Va. Mar. 6, 2025).
· cites it 9× “Va. Code Ann. § 53.1-154 (West 2025). 10 In determining that Plaintiffs had no liberty interest in being considered for parole every year, the court explained that “although inmates may have some interest in parole consideration generally, it is clear that there is ‘no protected…”
Jackson v. West, No. 3:24-cv-00120 (E.D. Va. May 13, 2025).
· cites it 5× “’ Second, Jackson argues that the Court misunderstood Va. Code Ann. § 53.1-154 and that “[t]he only way you can give a person a deferral is if said person has more than 10 years or if they notify said person.”
Miller v. Bennett, No. 7:19-cv-00642 (W.D. Va. Aug. 19, 2021).
· cites it 2× “Code § 53.1-154. This statutory requirement, however, does not give rise to a protected liberty interest.”
Mills v. U.S. Dep't Of Just., No. 1:24-cv-00988 (E.D. Va. Apr. 25, 2025).
· cites it 2× “The Parole Board shall establish procedures for consideration of parole of persons entitled under subsection B consistent with the provisions of § 53.1-154. D. Any person who meets eligibility criteria for parole under subsection B and pursuant to § 53.”
Smith v. Unknown Six, No. 7:24-cv-00737 (W.D. Va. Apr. 29, 2025).
· cites it 2× “See Va. Code Ann. § 53.1-154 . Instead, it specifically provides that “[s]uch reviews shall include a live interview of the prisoner by a Board member or a staff member designated by the Board.”
Johnson v. Kiser, No. 7:19-cv-00488 (W.D. Va. Nov. 21, 2022).
“1-154 and rules adopted pursuant to subdivision 2 of § 53.”
Damian Jackson v. Patricia West, No. 25-6494 (4th Cir. Nov. 25, 2025).
“While Va. Code Ann. § 53.1-154 provides that the Virginia Parole Board should review an inmate’s eligibility for parole at least annually, the right to annual parole review “is a procedural function of Virginia’s parole scheme rather than a substantive right unto itself”; thus,…”
Jones v. Garner, 164 F.3d 589 (11th Cir. 1999).
“3d at 166 (citing Va.Code Ann. § 53.1-154 (Michie 1988)). The respective time frames created for the subsequent parole reconsideration of inmates by the South Carolina and Virginia statutes are thus considerably shorter than the lengthy eight-year gap between parole…”
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.