Kacy Duane Lloyd says non-violent second-striker parole program applicants should carefully check their files to ensure the information is accurate. He says he didn’t, and he was denied a parole date because his file contained wrong information.
“Do not depend on your counselors or UCC (Unit Classification Committee) to make sure the facts presented to the board are accurate,” said Lloyd. “You should request an Olson review.”
During an Olson review, an inmate’s counselor allows him to see the information contained inside his file, except for confidential sections, under California Code of Regulations Title 15, 3370(c).
Inmates do not appear before the board under the non-violent second-strikers (NVSS) parole process. The early release program was implemented under the federal court’s Plata decision requiring the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to reduce the prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity by February of next year.
The classification committee reviews inmates’ files and refers those eligible to the parole board, which makes their determination by evaluating the prisoner’s paperwork.
|“If my rehabilitation is the most important factor,
why would they use my past when they know I wasn’t rehabilitated then?”|
Lloyd had been eagerly waiting for a chance for his paperwork to be reviewed by the board since February 2014.
That’s when the federal court ordered the state “to create and implement a new parole process through which non-violent second-strikers (NVSS) will be eligible for parole consideration by the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) once they have served 50 percent of their sentence,” according to the Prison Law Office.
After a second court order and other delays, the classification committee saw Lloyd in March and referred his case to the BPH.
Lloyd’s case went before the board on April 30. Marc Remis of the BHP recommended denying release because: “The current offense for transportation or sale of a controlled substance while a member of a street gang is an aggravating factor.”
Lloyd pointed to his abstract of judgment that does not mention being convicted of a gang allegation in regard to the controlling offense of sell/transport of a controlled substance.
Remis also found that Lloyd had 10 prior felony convictions “presenting a repetitive pattern of robberies and/or weapons including multiple serious felonies…,” according to a copy of the BPH 1047 form.
However, Lloyd’s felony complaint lists three prior convictions, not 10. However, his file does list numerous arrests, mostly as a juvenile.
While in prison, Lloyd has taken advantage of the rehabilitative programs and earned his GED.
Remis did mention Lloyd’s institutional record as a mitigating factor.
“Mr Lloyd’s institutional record shows some compliance with institutional rules and programs by participating in GED, CCCMS Programming, anger management and re-entry, as well as working as a porter. However, there are two counseling chronos for failing to report to work and inciting a group of other inmates. Mr. Lloyd’s institutional record is a mitigating factor,” said Remis on the BPH 1047 form.
“If my rehabilitation is the most important factor, why would they use my past when they know I wasn’t rehabilitated then?” asked Lloyd. “This is an incentive program based on current rehabilitation efforts for non-violent second strikers. My California Risk Assessment is a “one” (low-risk score), according to what my counselors have told me.”
Lloyd says there is no 602 appeal process to a NVSS BPH denial; however, he has filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus.
