A new California Supreme Court decision clarifies the scope and proper application of the “some evidence” standard used by courts to review parole suitability determination.
The Supreme Court reversed a decision by the 4th District Court of Appeal that found the Board of Parole Hearings had improperly denied parole to Richard Shaputis at a 2009 parole hearing.
The Supreme Court’s decision also offered guidelines to appellate courts reviewing a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging board denials of suitability, or parole reversals by the governor.
The Supreme Court affirmed that “the paramount consideration for both the board and the governor…is whether the inmate currently poses a threat to public safety.”
The decision made clear that reviewing courts may overturn a decision by the board or governor when the evidence only leads to a conclusion that the inmate no longer presents a risk to public safety.
The Supreme Court found that the board’s decision denying parole to Shaputis was based on a long history of domestic violence, and his inadequate insight as well as his failure to accept responsibility for his crime.
The Dec. 29, 2011 decision is In re Richard Shaputis on Habeas Corpus, Case No S188655.
