Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

No Constitutional Right to In-Person Parole Hearings for Nonviolent Offenders in California Under Prop 57

July 10, 2024 (2 min read)
California court house exterior

Question: Are incarcerated persons in California entitled to in-person court hearings?

Short Answer: No, Proposition 57 does not require or imply a right to an in-person hearing.

In a 2022 decision, the California Court of Appeal ruled that nonviolent prisoners eligible for parole consideration under Proposition 57 are not constitutionally entitled to an in-person hearing.

The case that set the precedent, 76 Cal.App.5th 837 (2022), addressed the parole process for determinately sentenced nonviolent offenders under the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016 (Proposition 57).

The Background

In 2014, Larry Bailey was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon and leaving the scene of an accident, receiving a 28-year prison sentence. After Proposition 57 passed in 2016, allowing early parole consideration for nonviolent felony offenders, Bailey was considered for parole in 2017 and 2018. However, the Board of Parole Hearings conducted a paper review process, allowing Bailey to submit a written statement but denying him an in-person hearing.

Bailey challenged the parole denials, and the trial court initially granted him habeas relief, ruling that he was entitled to a live parole hearing. The court ordered the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to promulgate new regulations reflecting the right to an in-person hearing under Proposition 57.

The Appeals Court's Ruling

On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the lower court's decision, concluding that Proposition 57 did not require or imply a right to an in-person hearing. The court held that the Department acted within its authority in adopting the parole regulations at issue, which did not provide for in-person hearings.

Furthermore, the court found that the absence of an in-person hearing did not violate equal protection principles or a prisoner's right to procedural due process. The court stated that determinately sentenced nonviolent prisoners eligible for parole consideration under Proposition 57 were not constitutionally entitled to an in-person hearing.

Legal Implications

The Bailey decision clarifies that nonviolent offenders eligible for early parole consideration under Proposition 57 do not have a constitutional right to an in-person hearing. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation can continue to conduct paper reviews for these parole considerations, if the process complies with due process requirements.

This ruling provides guidance for the implementation of Proposition 57 and the parole process for nonviolent offenders in California. It also highlights the ongoing legal debates surrounding parole procedures and the rights of incarcerated individuals.

Inmate Litigation Reporter

The basis for this article appears in the Spring 2023 Inmate Litigation Reporter, an exclusive quarterly digest analyzing new legal developments affecting the rights of people in prison -- developed specifically for people in prison.  To learn more about this content and other LexisNexis Inmate Law Library solutions, click here.    

Follow LexisNexis Inmate Law Library Solutions on LinkedIn, and click here to learn more.  

Follow LexisNexis Law Books on LinkedIn, Twitter, and Facebook. Visit the LexisNexis Book Store for the latest releases and deals on legal content and law books.