A coalition of crime victims’ relatives, advocacy groups and a law enforcement association filed a petition Wednesday in Sacramento County Superior Court seeking to invalidate recently adopted parole regulations they say exceed the Board of Parole Hearings’ authority and undermine victims’ rights enshrined by California’s Marsy’s Law.
Groups argue rules create parallel resentencing system
The petition was brought by family members of people killed in violent crimes along with organizations including Crime Victims United of California, Citizens Against Homicide, Victim Advocate Angels and the Peace Officers Research Association of California. They contend the new rules establish evaluations and hearings for inmates who are statutorily ineligible for parole and authorize the board to make recommendations for recall and resentencing to the court, and for commutation to the governor.
According to the petition, a favorable recommendation under the new procedures would be based on the same criteria used in parole determinations, but would not require consideration of statutory minimums, sentencing mandates or the interests of victims. Petitioners say that approach effectively creates a system that mirrors parole hearings — a system Californians restricted under Marsy’s Law (Proposition 9, 2008), which expanded victims’ rights to notification, participation and consultation in criminal justice proceedings.
“The Board of Parole Hearings … has taken it upon itself to expand this recommendation authority into a full-blown system of reviews and hearings paralleling and resembling the system of parole hearings — the system that the people of California voted to curb in Marsy’s Law,”
The petition argues the regulations violate the Administrative Procedure Act as well as crime victims’ rights under Marsy’s Law. It also stresses that for adults convicted of first-degree murder with special circumstances, the law provides only two punishment outcomes: life without the possibility of parole or death, and that the new rules improperly undercut those sentencing outcomes.
Who signed the petition and what they seek
- Petitioners: survivors and family members of murdered victims; Crime Victims United of California; Citizens Against Homicide; Victim Advocate Angels; Peace Officers Research Association of California.
- Relief requested: a writ of mandate voiding the new parole regulations.
- Legal bases cited: violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and infringement of victims’ rights under Marsy’s Law.
The filing frames the regulations as imposing “prolonged suffering” on victims’ families by reinstating a process similar to parole hearings that voters limited nearly two decades ago. The petition asks the court to declare the rulemaking invalid and to block the board from implementing the challenged procedures.
Implications and next steps
If the court grants the petition, the Board of Parole Hearings would be barred from applying the contested provisions while the legal dispute continues. The case raises broader questions about the scope of administrative authority in crafting procedures that touch on finality of sentences and victims’ participation in post-conviction review.
| Issue | Petitioners' claim |
|---|---|
| Scope of board authority | Exceeded by creating resentencing recommendations |
| Victims’ rights | Undermined by process resembling parole hearings |
| Statutory sentencing | Not adequately considered in recommendations |
The Board of Parole Hearings and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the petition. The Sacramento County Superior Court will determine whether to issue the writ and, if so, whether to halt the regulations pending further proceedings.
The outcome could affect how post-conviction reviews are conducted in California and may prompt further litigation over the boundary between administrative rulemaking and voters’ constitutionally enshrined victims’ rights.
