Award Recipient
Top 100 Trial Attorneys in the United States
Contact Us for a Free Consultation
When is Discharge from Parole Allowed and Considered?
Many of our clients ask about when their parole will end. The answer depends on many factors, as this article will attempt to explain.
Penal Code §§ 3000.1 and 3001, as well as 15 CCR §§ 3720-3723 allow for early discharge from parole unless there is good cause to keep the person under supervision.
The CDCR must conduct a discharge review after a former inmate has served a certain amount of time on continuous parole. Continuous parole means that the parolee has not had parole revoked and has not had any “dead time” or suspension of parole for absconding or being unavailable for supervision. The date of the review depends on the type of crime and sentence for which the person is on parole. 15 CCR § 3720(b)(1). A person who falls into more than one category is subject to the longest applicable period.
The discharge review dates are:
- Six months, for determinate sentences for non-violent, non-serious, non-sex crimes.
- One year, for determinate sentences for serious felonies listed in Penal Code § 1192.7 or for persons required to register as sex offenders.
- Two years, for determinate sentences for violent felonies listed in Penal Code § 667.5(c).
- Three years, for sentences with five-year parole periods (this is mostly people who served indeterminate life terms and who do not fall into other categories).
- Five years, for life-long parole terms for second degree murder.
- Six years, for people with 10-year parole terms (for specific violent or serious sex offenses).
- Seven years, for life-long parole terms for first degree murder. Penal Code § 3000.1(b)-(c); Penal Code § 3001.
- There is no early discharge for people serving life-long parole for indeterminate life terms for sex offenses. Penal Code § 3000.1(a)(2).
- There is no early discharge for people who were sentenced for offenses committed between July 1, 1977 and December 31, 1978. 15 CCR § 2535(b)(5).
When a person nears the discharge review date, CDCR parole staff will prepare a report recommending for or against keeping the person under parole supervision. Parole agents consider whether the person has a stable residence, is employed and / or enrolled in school, and can support himself or herself, the person’s mental health, any gang affiliation, status of restitution payment, criminal history, and the nature of the commitment offense. 15 CCR §§ 3720-3721.1. A parolee may appeal any mistakes of fact in the parole agent report by filing a 602 administrative appeal with the parole office.
The Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) then decides if there is good cause to keep the person under supervision. Penal Code § 3000.1(b); Penal Code § 3001(a)-(c). Factors that can provide “good cause” include a particularly serious commitment offense, violent behavior or gang activity in prison, poor parole adjustment, returns to custody for substance abuse or mental health treatment, or the mere conclusion that supervision is “needed for the safety of the parolee or of the public.” 15 CCR § 2535(d); 15 CCR § 3501. The person on parole does not have a right to personally attend the review. 15 CCR § 2535(c).
The BPH must either discharge the person within 30 days after the discharge review date or take action to keep the person under supervision after expiration of the discharge review period. Penal Code § 3000.1(b); Penal Code § 3001(a)-(c).
The BPH must notify the person on parole in writing of a decision to keep them on parole. Penal Code § 3000.1(b); Penal Code § 3001; 15 CCR § 2535(c); 15 CCR §§ 3722-3733. The remedy for failure to provide notice is to give the person proper notice and an opportunity to appeal the decision, not a mandatory release from parole or nullification of subsequent BPH action. People v. Jack (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1129, 1133-1134, 70 Cal. Rptr. 2d 676, 678-679; In re Roa (1991) 1 Cal. App. 4th 724, 3 Cal. Rptr. 2d 1; In re Ruzicka (1991) 230 Cal. App. 3d 595, 281 Cal. Rptr. 435, but see In re Carr (1995) 38 Cal. App. 4th 209, 215, 45 Cal. Rptr. 2d 34 (remedy for failure to act is discharge) and In re Nesper (1990) 217 Cal. App. 3d 872, 266 Cal. Rptr. 113 (remedy for failure to act is discharge).
This article would not have been possible without reference to the Prison Law Office’s excellent treatise, “California Prison and Parole Law Handbook,” from which most of the material in this articles is based. We are forever grateful for their contribution to this area.
