A. No person shall be released on parole by the Board until a thorough investigation has been made into the prisoner's history, physical and mental condition and character, and his conduct, employment, and attitude while in prison. All information collected through such investigation shall be made available to the prisoner or his attorney, provided that (i) neither the prisoner nor his attorney shall further disclose, reproduce, copy, or disseminate such information in any way and (ii) the Board shall redact all personal information of the victim. The Board shall also determine that his release on parole will not be incompatible with the interests of society or of the prisoner. The provisions of this section shall not be applicable to persons released on parole pursuant to § 53.1-159.
B. An investigation conducted pursuant to this section shall include notification that a victim may submit to the Virginia Parole Board evidence concerning the impact that the release of the prisoner will have on such victim. This notification shall be sent to the last address provided to the Board by any victim of a crime for which the prisoner was incarcerated. If additional victim research is necessary, electronic notification shall be sent to the attorney for the Commonwealth and the director of the victim/witness program, if one exists, of the jurisdiction in which the offense occurred. The Board shall endeavor diligently to contact the victim prior to making any decision to release any inmate on discretionary parole. The victim of a crime for which the prisoner is incarcerated may present to the Board oral, including by virtual means, or written testimony concerning the impact that the release of the prisoner will have on the victim, and the Board shall consider such testimony in its review. Once testimony is submitted by a victim, such testimony shall remain in the prisoner's parole file and shall be considered by the Board at every parole review. The victim of a crime for which the prisoner is incarcerated may submit a request in writing or by electronic means to the Board to be notified of (i) the prisoner's parole eligibility date and mandatory release date as determined by the Department of Corrections, (ii) any parole-related interview dates, and (iii) the Board's decision regarding parole for the prisoner. The victim may request that the Board only notify the victim if, following its review, the Board is inclined to grant parole to the prisoner, in which case the victim shall have 45 days to present written or oral testimony for the Board's consideration. If the victim has requested to be notified only if the Board is inclined to grant parole and no testimony, either written or oral, is received from the victim within at least 45 days of the date of the Board's notification, the Board shall render its decision based on information available to it in accordance with subsection A. The definition of victim in § 19.2-11.01 shall apply to this section.
Although any information presented by the victim of a crime for which the prisoner is incarcerated shall be retained in the prisoner's parole file and considered by the Board, such information shall not infringe on the Board's authority to exercise its decision-making authority.
C. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection A, if a physical or mental examination of a prisoner eligible for parole has been conducted within the last 12 months, and the prisoner has not required medical or psychiatric treatment within a like period while incarcerated, the prisoner may be released on parole by the Parole Board directly from a local correctional facility.
The Department shall offer each prisoner to be released on parole or under mandatory release who has been sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of at least three years the opportunity to participate in a transition program within six months of such prisoner's projected or mandatory release date. The program shall include advice for job training opportunities, recommendations for living a law-abiding life, and financial literacy information. The Secretary of Public Safety and Homeland Security shall prescribe guidelines to govern these programs.
Code 1950, § 53-253; 1970, c. 648; 1982, c. 636; 1987, c. 668; 1992, c. 222; 1995, cc. 687, 778; 2002, c. 569; 2016, c. 208; 2021, Sp. Sess. I, c. 545; 2023, cc. 805, 806.
Notes of Decisions
Johnson, Raheem v. Commonwealth, 793 S.E.2d 326 (Va. 2016).
· cites it 4× “Code § 53.1-155; Virginia Parole Board, Policy Manual, Section I (2006), available at https://vpb.”
Fishback v. Commonwealth, 532 S.E.2d 629 (Va. 2000).
· cites it 4× “reflect the probability that the individual will lead a law-abiding life ...," as well as an evaluation of the individual's "[g]eneral [a]djustment" to the institutional experience, including the individual's behavior and relationships with the prison staff and other inmates.”
James v. Robinson, 863 F. Supp. 275 (E.D. Va. 1994).
· cites it 6× “The operative Virginia statute governing release on *277 parole is Va.Code § 53.1-155 (Michie Supp. 1994). It reads: No person shall be released on parole by the Board until a thorough investigation has been made into the prisoner’s history, physical and mental condition and…”
Alley v. Angelone, 962 F. Supp. 827 (E.D. Va. 1997).
· cites it 2× “Section 53.1-155(A). At most, inmates in Virginia have an expectation that they may at some time be released on parole according to the discretion of the Virginia Parole Board should the Boax*d, in its discx’etion, determine that such release is in the *835 interests of society…”
Garrett v. Angelone, 39 Va. Cir. 307 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1996).
· cites it 12× “The Virginia parole statute, § 53.1-155, creates no liberty interest that could serve as a basis for Petitioner’s allegations.”
Steven W. Goodman v. Chadwick Dotson (Va. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 28× “Even assuming without deciding that the ex post facto clause could conceivably apply to a policy rule promulgated by an agency—or applying the ex post facto challenge solely to Code § 53.1-155—because there is no legal conflict between the policy manual and Code, Goodman has not…”
Steven W. Goodman v. Chadwick Dotson (Va. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 28× “Even assuming without deciding that the ex post facto clause could conceivably apply to a policy rule promulgated by an agency—or applying the ex post facto challenge solely to Code § 53.1-155—because there is no legal conflict between the policy manual and Code, Goodman has not…”
Jennings v. Parole Bd. of Virginia, 61 F. Supp. 2d 462 (E.D. Va. 1999).
· cites it 3× “See also Va.Code § 53.1-155 (stating that, before granting an inmate parole, the Parole Board shall “determine that his release on parole will not be incompatible with the interests of society or of the prisoner”).”
Johnson, Raheem v. Commonwealth (Va. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Code § 53.1-155; Virginia Parole Board, Policy Manual, Section I (2006), available at https://vpb.”
Robinson v. Fahey, 366 F. Supp. 2d 368 (E.D. Va. 2005).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiff alleges that the defendants, acting in concert and collusion, deprived plaintiff of his rights under state law, by acting arbitrary and capricious, and abusing their authority and discretion, in failing and refusing to afford plaintiff his rights to a full and fair…”
Ragins v. Gilmore, 48 F. Supp. 2d 566 (E.D. Va. 1999).
· cites it 2× “Va.Code Ann. § 53.1-155(A) (Michie 1998).”
— Va. Code Ann. § 53.1-155(A) — 6 cases
Fishback v. Commonwealth, 532 S.E.2d 629 (Va. 2000).
“reflect the probability that the individual will lead a law-abiding life ...," as well as an evaluation of the individual's "[g]eneral [a]djustment" to the institutional experience, including the individual's behavior and relationships with the prison staff and other inmates.”
Alley v. Angelone, 962 F. Supp. 827 (E.D. Va. 1997).
“Section 53.1-155(A). At most, inmates in Virginia have an expectation that they may at some time be released on parole according to the discretion of the Virginia Parole Board should the Boax*d, in its discx’etion, determine that such release is in the *835 interests of society…”
Garrett v. Angelone, 39 Va. Cir. 307 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1996).
“The Virginia parole statute, § 53.1-155, creates no liberty interest that could serve as a basis for Petitioner’s allegations.”
Steven W. Goodman v. Chadwick Dotson (Va. Ct. App. 2025).
“Even assuming without deciding that the ex post facto clause could conceivably apply to a policy rule promulgated by an agency—or applying the ex post facto challenge solely to Code § 53.1-155—because there is no legal conflict between the policy manual and Code, Goodman has not…”
Steven W. Goodman v. Chadwick Dotson (Va. Ct. App. 2025).
“Even assuming without deciding that the ex post facto clause could conceivably apply to a policy rule promulgated by an agency—or applying the ex post facto challenge solely to Code § 53.1-155—because there is no legal conflict between the policy manual and Code, Goodman has not…”
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.