Victims' advocates, police group challenge new parole review process for lifers

A public interest legal foundation joined by law enforcement organizations and survivors of crime victims sued California corrections officials Wednesday over newly adopted regulations governing the Board of Parole Hearings' authority to recommend commutations and sentence recalls for convicts serving the state's longest prison terms.

The regulations were approved by the Office of Administrative Law and filed with the Secretary of State on July 9. They are scheduled to take effect Oct. 1.

The petition for writ of mandate, submitted by Criminal Justice Legal Foundation attorney Kent Scheidegger, seeks to block regulations that the plaintiffs contend unlawfully create an administrative process for recommending sentence reductions, recalls and gubernatorial commutations for convicts serving life without the possibility of parole and de facto life-without-parole sentences. Chavez et. Al v. Board of Parole Hearings, No. pending, Sacramento Cty., filed July 10, 2026).

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation said in an email the regulations "do not release anyone from prison" but instead establish "a transparent process for the Board of Parole Hearings in commutation and resentencing referrals." The department said, "Any final decision remains solely with the governor or the courts."

The lawsuit turns on whether the board has authority under Penal Code Sections 4801 and 1172.1 to adopt the regulations or whether, as the plaintiffs contend, it created a new sentencing process that only the Legislature or California voters may authorize.

"This lawsuit is about far more than one set of regulations," Criminal Justice Legal Foundation President and CEO Anne Marie Schubert said. "It is about whether an unelected administrative agency can create a new early-release process for some of California's most violent offenders without approval from the Legislature or the voters."

Schubert, the former Sacramento County district attorney, said, "Victims' families were promised that life without the possibility of parole meant exactly that. Instead, they are being forced to relive unimaginable tragedies decades after they believed justice had been served."

The foundation contends the regulations unlawfully expand the board's authority and could permit review of inmates serving life without the possibility of parole and other lengthy sentences imposed for crimes including the murders of peace officers, children, multiple victims and torture murders.

"These regulations create an extensive process of evaluations and hearings for inmates not yet or not ever eligible," stated the petition. "They call for a positive recommendation whenever an inmate meets the same criterion that is used for parole of a parole eligible inmate, with no consideration for the just punishment for the crime, the minimum sentence for the crime, the other factors required by law to be considered in determining a sentence, or the finality interests of the victims."

Among the organizations supporting the lawsuit is the San Francisco Police Officers Association.

"Our members know firsthand the cost of violent crime. We have buried one of our own. Officer Isaac Espinoza gave his life protecting the people of San Francisco, and his family, friends and fellow officers continue to carry that loss every day," association President Louis Wong said in a statement.

"The people of California expect that sentences imposed for the most violent offenders will be governed by the laws passed by the Legislature and the voters--not rewritten by an unelected administrative agency. We stand with crime victims, law enforcement and the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in urging the courts to stop these unlawful regulations before they undermine justice, accountability and public safety," Wong added.

The association said it believes "significant changes to California's sentencing laws must be made through the legislative process, not through administrative rulemaking."

In a more detailed statement, CDCR emphasized, "This is not a parole process."

"These regulations guide how the board evaluates whether to issue recommendations for commutation or recall of sentence, as authorized under Penal Code Sections 4801 and 1172.1," the department said.

"The board does not release anyone. Commutations and resentencing authority remain exclusively with the governor and California's sentencing courts. The board's role is advisory only."

CDCR also said, "Public safety is the foundation of this process and victims receive meaningful opportunities to participate before any recommendation is ever made."

According to the department, registered victims will receive at least 90 days' notice before any hearing and may attend and submit statements. It also said only inmates who have served at least 25 years and meet specified eligibility requirements may enter the review process, which excludes inmates sentenced to death, registered sex offenders, inmates nearing release or parole eligibility, and inmates who have already received a commutation during the same gubernatorial term.

The department said every case also requires a comprehensive risk assessment before any hearing may proceed and that hearings are canceled if an inmate is rated high risk.

Initial reviews are scheduled to begin July 1, 2027, with hearings beginning July 1, 2028. CDCR described the rollout as "a measured, multi-year process designed to ensure careful evaluation."