(1)Existing law requires the Board of Parole Hearings to meet with each indeterminately sentenced inmate during the 6th year before the inmates minimum eligible parole date for the purpose of reviewing and documenting the inmates activities and conduct pertinent to parole eligibility. One year before the inmates minimum eligible parole date, existing law requires a panel of the board to meet with the inmate and to grant parole unless the panel or board sitting en banc determines that the gravity of the current convicted offense, or the timing and gravity of current or past convicted offenses, is such that consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration for the inmate. In certain circumstances, the board will conduct an en banc review and existing law specifies how the en banc review is required to be conducted. Existing law requires a decision of the board to become final unless the board finds that the panel made an error of law, or that the panels decision was based on an error of fact, or that new information should be presented to the board, and that, when corrected or considered by the board, has a substantial likelihood of resulting in a substantially different decision upon a rehearing. Existing law authorizes the Governor to request a review of a decision by the board to grant or deny parole and, if a request has been made, existing law requires the request to be reviewed by a majority of commissioners, as specified.

This bill would instead require a decision by the board to become final unless the board finds an error of law or fact or new information should be presented to the board and that, when corrected or considered by the board, has a substantial likelihood of resulting in a different decision upon a rehearing. The bill would also make the decision and vote of each commissioner of the board in an en banc review a public record. The bill would require the board, when reviewing decisions referred en banc, to, among other things, decide if the hearing panels decision is supported by substantial evidence and would require the board to vote to affirm the proposed decision, order a new hearing, rescind the proposed decision, or set the parole decision for a rescission hearing based on new information. banc based on review of a panels decision, to determine if there was a material error of law or fact, or new information that, when corrected or considered by the board, has a substantial likelihood of resulting in a different decision upon a rehearing, and would require the board to vote to either affirm the decision or vacate the decision and set a new hearing. The bill would require the board, when reviewing a parole decision referred en banc by the Governor, to address the Governors stated reason or reasons for the requested review, and would require the board to either affirm the decision, refer for a recision hearing for lack of substantial evidence, or, in the case of a denial, vacate the decision and set a new hearing. The bill would also make nonsubstantive changes throughout these provisions.

(2)Existing law defines a sexually violent predator to mean a person who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense against one or more victims and who has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes the person a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that the person will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior. For purposes of this definition, a conviction for a sexually violent offense includes convictions that resulted in either a determinate or an indeterminate prison sentence, as specified. Existing law requires the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to refer a person who is in custody under that departments jurisdiction, and who is serving a determinate sentence or whose parole has been revoked, for evaluation by the State Department of State Hospitals at least 6 months prior to that individuals scheduled date for release from prison if the secretary determines that the person may be a sexually violent predator. Existing law requires a petition for commitment as a sexually violent predator to be filed in the county in which the person was convicted of the sexual offense for which the person was committed to the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

This bill would authorize the executive officer Executive Officer of the Board of Parole Hearings to refer individuals for evaluation as a sexually violent predator pursuant to these provisions. The bill would authorize the secretary or executive officer of the board to refer the person for evaluation if the incarcerated person is determinately sentenced and is scheduled for a parole hearing in the next 6 months. The bill would additionally authorize the secretary or executive officer of the board to refer an individual who is serving an indeterminate term or whose parole was revoked who meets certain criteria for evaluation at least 6 months before the individuals scheduled release date or if the person is scheduled for a parole hearing within the next 6 months, as specified. By imposing additional duties on counties regarding commitment of persons as sexually violent predators, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

(1)Existing law requires the Board of Parole Hearings to meet with each indeterminately sentenced inmate during the 6th year before the inmates minimum eligible parole date for the purpose of reviewing and documenting the inmates activities and conduct pertinent to parole eligibility. One year before the inmates minimum eligible parole date, existing law requires a panel of the board to meet with the inmate and to grant parole unless the panel or board sitting en banc determines that the gravity of the current convicted offense, or the timing and gravity of current or past convicted offenses, is such that consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration for the inmate. In certain circumstances, the board will conduct an en banc review and existing law specifies how the en banc review is required to be conducted. Existing law requires a decision of the board to become final unless the board finds that the panel made an error of law, or that the panels decision was based on an error of fact, or that new information should be presented to the board, and that, when corrected or considered by the board, has a substantial likelihood of resulting in a substantially different decision upon a rehearing. Existing law authorizes the Governor to request a review of a decision by the board to grant or deny parole and, if a request has been made, existing law requires the request to be reviewed by a majority of commissioners, as specified.

(2)Existing law defines a sexually violent predator to mean a person who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense against one or more victims and who has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes the person a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that the person will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior. For purposes of this definition, a conviction for a sexually violent offense includes convictions that resulted in either a determinate or an indeterminate prison sentence, as specified. Existing law requires the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to refer a person who is in custody under that departments jurisdiction, and who is serving a determinate sentence or whose parole has been revoked, for evaluation by the State Department of State Hospitals at least 6 months prior to that individuals scheduled date for release from prison if the secretary determines that the person may be a sexually violent predator. Existing law requires a petition for commitment as a sexually violent predator to be filed in the county in which the person was convicted of the sexual offense for which the person was committed to the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

This bill would authorize the executive officer of the Board of Parole Hearings to refer individuals for evaluation as a sexually violent predator pursuant to these provisions. The bill would authorize the secretary or executive officer of the board to refer the person for evaluation if the incarcerated person is determinately sentenced and is scheduled for a parole hearing in the next 6 months. The bill would additionally authorize the secretary or executive officer of the board to refer an individual who is serving an indeterminate term or whose parole was revoked who meets certain criteria for evaluation at least 6 months before the individuals scheduled release date or if the person is scheduled for a parole hearing within the next 6 months, as specified. By imposing additional duties on counties regarding commitment of persons as sexually violent predators, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

(1)Existing law requires the Board of Parole Hearings to meet with each indeterminately sentenced inmate during the 6th year before the inmates minimum eligible parole date for the purpose of reviewing and documenting the inmates activities and conduct pertinent to parole eligibility. One year before the inmates minimum eligible parole date, existing law requires a panel of the board to meet with the inmate and to grant parole unless the panel or board sitting en banc determines that the gravity of the current convicted offense, or the timing and gravity of current or past convicted offenses, is such that consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration for the inmate. In certain circumstances, the board will conduct an en banc review and existing law specifies how the en banc review is required to be conducted. Existing law requires a decision of the board to become final unless the board finds that the panel made an error of law, or that the panels decision was based on an error of fact, or that new information should be presented to the board, and that, when corrected or considered by the board, has a substantial likelihood of resulting in a substantially different decision upon a rehearing. Existing law authorizes the Governor to request a review of a decision by the board to grant or deny parole and, if a request has been made, existing law requires the request to be reviewed by a majority of commissioners, as specified.

This bill would exempt a review of a decision by the board to grant or deny parole at the request of the Governor from the above-described standard of review. The bill would also make the decision and vote of each commissioner of the board in an en banc review a public record.

(2)Existing law defines a sexually violent predator to mean a person who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense against one or more victims and who has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes the person a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that the person will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior. For purposes of this definition, a conviction for a sexually violent offense includes convictions that resulted in either a determinate or an indeterminate prison sentence, as specified. Existing law requires the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to refer a person who is in custody under that departments jurisdiction, and who is serving a determinate sentence or whose parole has been revoked, for evaluation by the State Department of State Hospitals at least 6 months prior to that individuals scheduled date for release from prison if the secretary determines that the person may be a sexually violent predator. Existing law requires a petition for commitment as a sexually violent predator to be filed in the county in which the person was convicted of the sexual offense for which the person was committed to the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

This bill would revise the criteria for referral to additionally apply to a person who is serving an indeterminate prison sentence. The bill would also authorize the secretary to refer the person for evaluation if the persons scheduled release date is less than 6 months after the date of the decision to grant parole. By imposing additional duties on counties regarding commitment of persons as sexually violent predators, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS  

Bill No: SB 1446

Author: Committee on Public Safety

Amended: 7/2/26

Vote: 21

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 6-0, 4/21/26

AYES: Arreguín, Seyarto, Caballero, Cortese, Pérez, Wiener

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/14/26

AYES: Cervantes, Seyarto, Cabaldon, Dahle, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

SENATE FLOOR: 33-0, 5/22/26

AYES: Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Ochoa Bogh, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Becker, Hurtado, Niello, Padilla, Stern

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: Passed, 8/27/26

SUBJECT: Incarcerated persons: release and parole

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill 1) requires a Board of Parole Hearing (BPH) en banc decision and vote to be a public record; 2) requires the executive officer of BPH to refer a determinately sentenced individual for evaluation if the person may be a sexually violent predator (SVP); and 3) authorizes the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) or executive officer of BPH to refer an indeterminately sentenced individual for evaluation if the person may be an SVP.

Assembly Amendments

revise the en banc review process.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) to meet with each incarcerated person during the sixth year prior to the person’s minimum eligible parole date (MEPD) for the purposes of reviewing and documenting the person’s activities and conduct pertinent to both parole eligibility. Requires that the BPH provide the incarcerated person with information about the parole hearing process, legal factors relevant to their suitability or unsuitability for parole, and individualized recommendations for the person regarding their work assignments, rehabilitative programs, and institutional behavior during the consultation. (Penal (Pen.) Code, § 3041, subd. (a)(1).)
2. Provides that one year prior to the incarcerated person’s MEPD, a panel of two or more commissioners or deputy commissioners must meet with the person and shall normally grant parole. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (a)(2).)
3. Requires, in the event of a tie vote, the matter to be referred for an en banc review of the record that was before the panel that rendered the tie vote. Requires the board to vote to either grant or deny parole and render a statement of decision upon en banc review. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (a)(3).)
4. Requires that an incarcerated person be released upon a grant of parole, subject to all applicable review periods. Prohibits the release of an incarcerated person who has not reached their MEPD unless the person is eligible for earlier release pursuant to their youth offender parole eligibility date or elderly parole eligible date. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (a)(4).)
5. Requires the panel or board, sitting en banc, to grant parole to an incarcerated person unless it determines that the gravity of the current convicted offense or offenses, or the timing and gravity of current or past convicted offense or offenses, is such that consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration for this individual. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (b)(1).)
6. Requires that any decision of the parole panel finding an incarcerated individual suitable for parole becomes final within 120 days of the date of the hearing. Authorizes the board to review the panel’s decision during that period. Requires the panel’s decision to become final pursuant unless the board finds that the panel made an error of law, or that the panel’s decision was based on an error of fact, or that new information should be presented to the board, any of which when corrected or considered by the board has a substantial likelihood of resulting in a substantially different decision upon a rehearing. Requires the board to consult with the commissioners who conducted the parole consideration hearing in making this determination. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (b)(2).)
7. Prohibits a decision of a panel from being disapproved and referred for rehearing except by a majority vote of the board, sitting en banc, following a public meeting. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (b)(3).)
8. Provides that an en banc review by the board means a review conducted by a majority of commissioners holding office on the date the matter is heard by the board. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (e).)
9. Requires that an en banc review be conducted in compliance with the following:
10. The commissioners conducting the review must consider the entire record of the hearing that resulted in the tie vote.
11. The review must be limited to the record of the hearing. Requires the record to consist of the transcript or audiotape of the hearing, written or electronically recorded statements actually considered by the panel that produced the tie vote, and any other material actually considered by the panel. Prohibits new evidence or comments from being considered in the en banc proceeding.
12. The board must separately state reasons for its decision to grant or deny parole.
13. A commissioner who was involved in the tie vote must be recused from consideration of the matter in the en banc review. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (e).)
14. Authorizes the Governor, any time before an incarcerated person’s release, to request review of a decision by a parole authority concerning the grant or denial of parole to any inmate in a state prison. Requires the Governor to state the reason or reasons for the request, and whether the request is based on a public safety concern, a concern that the gravity of current or past convicted offenses may have been given inadequate consideration, or on other factors. (Pen. Code, § 3041.1, subd. (a).
15. Requires the request, if one has been made, to be reviewed by a majority of commissioners specifically appointed to hear adult parole matters and who are holding office at the time. Requires, in case of a review, a vote in favor of parole by a majority of the commissioners reviewing the request to be required to grant parole to any incarcerated person. (Pen. Code, § 3041.1, subd. (b).)
16. Provides for the civil commitment for psychiatric and psychological treatment of an individual incarcerated in state prison found to be a sexually violent predator (SVP) after the person has served their prison commitment. (Welfare (Welf.) & Institutions (Inst.) Code, § 6600, et seq.)
17. Defines a “sexually violent predator” as “a person who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense against one or more victims and who has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes the person a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that he or she will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600, subd. (a)(1).)
18. Requires the Secretary of CDCR, when they have determined that an individual who is in custody (who is either serving a determinate prison sentence or whose parole has been revoked, and who is not in custody for the commission of a new offense committed while the individual was serving an indeterminate term in a state hospital as an SVP) may be an SVP, to refer the person for evaluation at least six months prior to that individual’s scheduled release date for release from prison. Allows the referral to be made less than six months prior to the person’s scheduled release date if the person was received by CDCR with less than nine months of their sentence to serve, or if the person’s release date is modified by judicial or administrative action. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6601, subd. (a)(1).)
19. Permits a person committed as an SVP to be held for an indeterminate term upon commitment. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 6604, 6604.1.)

This bill:

1. Requires the panel’s decision to become final unless the board finds that the panel made an error of law, or that the panel’s decision was based on an error of fact, or that new information should be presented to the board, any of which when corrected or considered by the board has a substantial likelihood of resulting in a different decision upon a rehearing.
2. Requires an en banc decision to grant or deny parole resulting from a tie vote of the granting panel and the vote of the commissioners to be a public record. Requires the commissioners making the final decision to consider the entire record of the hearing that resulted in the tie vote, and the review is limited to the record of the hearing. Requires a commissioner who served on the hearing panel to be recused from consideration of the matter in the en banc review. Requires the board to separately state reasons for its en banc decision to grant or deny parole.
3. Requires the board, when reviewing a parole decision referred en banc, to determine if there was a material error of law or fact, or new information that, when corrected or considered by the board, has a substantial likelihood of resulting in a different decision upon a rehearing. Requires the board to vote to either affirm the decision or vacate the decision and set a new hearing. Requires the decision and the vote of the commissioners to be a public record. 
4. Requires the board, when reviewing a parole decision referred en banc by the Governor, to address the Governor’s state reason or reasons for the requested review. Requires the board to vote to either affirm the decision, or refer for a rescission hearing for lack of substantial evidence, or, in the case of a denial, vacate the decision and set a new hearing. Provides that the decision and the vote of the commissioners is a public record.
5. Requires the executive officer of BPH to refer determinately sentenced individuals for evaluation if the person may be an SVP.
6. Authorizes the Secretary of CDCR or executive officer of BPH to refer indeterminately sentenced individuals for evaluation if the person may be an SVP.

Background

Parole Suitability Generally. Incarcerated individuals who are indeterminately sentenced must be granted parole by BPH in order to be released from prison. Existing law provides that the parole board “shall grant parole to an inmate unless it determines that the gravity of the current convicted offense or offenses, or the timing and gravity of current or past convicted offense or offenses, is such that consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration for this individual.” (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (b).) The fundamental consideration when making a determination about an individual’s suitability for parole is whether the individual currently poses an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released from prison. (In re Shaputis (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1241.) The decision whether to grant parole is an inherently subjective determination. (In re Rosenkrantz (2002) 29 Cal.4th 616, 655.)

In deciding whether to grant parole, BPH must consider all relevant and reliable information available. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2281, subd. (b).) Factors BPH must consider include the nature of the commitment offense, including the circumstances of the person’s social history; past and present mental state; past criminal history, including involvement in other criminal misconduct which is reliably documented; the base and other commitment offenses, including behavior before, during and after the crime; past and present attitude toward the crime; any conditions of treatment or control, including the use of special conditions under which the individual may safely be released to the community; and any other information which bears on the individual’s suitability for release. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, §§ 2281, subd. (b).) The regulations further state that “[c]ircumstances which taken alone may not firmly establish unsuitability for parole may contribute to a pattern which results in a finding of unsuitability.” (Ibid.)

En Banc Review of a BPH Decision. Cases are referred for en banc review when a parole suitability hearing ends with a tie vote regarding whether to grant the person parole (occurs when there is a two-person hearing panel), when the Chief Counsel of BPH refers the case, and when the Governor requests review of a parole decision. (Pen. Code, §§ 3041, subds. (a), (b), (e); 3041.1.) Under Penal Code section 3041, subdivision (a)(5), a member of the hearing panel may also refer a case for en banc review.

The Board meets monthly over a few days at its headquarters in Sacramento to manage the Board’s business, including reviewing cases that are referred for en banc review. BPH’s Parole Hearing Process Handbook describes the monthly executive meetings as follows:

The Board holds an executive board meeting each month, which is open to the public. The meetings are conducted over two or more days. Members of the public may attend in person, by video, or by phone, as indicated on the meeting agenda. The meeting agenda, including all the decisions or “cases” that will be considered at the meeting, is posted on the Board’s website at least 10 calendar days before the date of the meeting. For all cases listed on the agenda, the Board notifies the incarcerated person, their attorney, the prosecutor, and any registered victims and victims’ family members. At the monthly executive board meeting, panels of commissioners hear public comment on the cases. Comments may be submitted in writing to the Board before the meeting. Those who want to speak during the meeting may attend the meeting and provide their comments. Comments are generally limited to two minutes per speaker. Once public comments have been received, the Board goes into closed session to deliberate and vote on each case. (BPH, The California Parole Hearing Process Handbook (Mar. 8, 2024), p. 46 <https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/bph/wp-content/uploads/sites/161/2025/03/CA-Parole-Hearing-Process-Handbook-For-Publication-03-08-24-2.pdf .) (Internal footnotes omitted.)

The Board consists of 21 parole commissioners. (Government Code § 12838.4.) Penal Code section 3041, subdivision (e), provides that an en banc review by the board means “a review conducted by a majority of commissioners holding office on the date the matter is heard by the board.” Section 3041 requires an en banc review to comply with the following:

• The commissioners conducting the review must consider the entire record of the hearing that resulted in the tie vote.
• The review must be limited to the record of the hearing. The record must consist of the transcript or audiotape of the hearing, written or electronically recorded statements actually considered by the panel that produced the tie vote, and any other material actually considered by the panel. New evidence or comments is prohibited from being considered in the en banc proceeding.
• The board must separately state reasons for its decision to grant or deny parole.
• A commissioner who was involved in the tie vote must be recused from consideration of the matter in the en banc review.

SVPs. The Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) establishes an extended civil commitment scheme for sex offenders who are about to be released from prison but are referred to the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) for treatment in a state hospital because they have suffered from a mental illness which causes them to be a danger to the safety of others. The initial screening is conducted by CDCR and BPH. (Welf. & Inst. Code § 6601, subd. (b).) If a determination is made that the person is likely a sexually violent predator, CDCR is required to refer to the person to DSH for a full evaluation. (Ibid.) The current statutory scheme only applies to determinately sentenced individuals.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

Ongoing costs of approximately $15.1 million to $25.8 million annually (General Fund) to the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) for additional SVP evaluations and treatment of additional committed patients.

For individuals serving indeterminate sentences, DSH assumes BPH would refer at the same rate CDCR currently refers individuals already granted parole, producing approximately 250 additional referrals and 500 evaluations annually. DSH estimates $3.87 million annually for that workload, reflecting ten SVP evaluators, one chief psychologist, one supervisor, two analysts, and 50 additional independent evaluations where the initial evaluators disagree. Assuming 10% to 20% of evaluations result in positive determinations, commitments would increase by approximately 25 to 50 patients annually, for treatment costs of approximately $10.23 million to $20.46 million at an average inpatient cost of $1,121 per day.

DSH identifies a second affected population. Because the bill permits referral in advance of a parole hearing rather than only following a grant of parole, determinately sentenced individuals eligible for the Elderly Parole Program with qualifying offenses would be evaluated earlier in the process. DSH estimates approximately 10 additional referrals annually at a cost of approximately $307,000, with treatment costs of approximately $409,000 to $818,000 for one to two additional patients. DSH states that available units at DSH-Coalinga, where SVPs are held, are fully activated, that accommodating additional SVP patients may require relocating other patient populations, and that contracting for additional bed capacity would carry costs of an unknown amount. As of March 2026, DSH had a population of 954 SVP patients, and average length of stay is approximately 12 years, so commitments added in the budget year carry forward for more than a decade. Notably, DSH assumes referrals will occur at current rates even though referral of indeterminately sentenced individuals is permissive rather than mandatory under this bill. Actual costs will depend on how BPH exercises that discretion.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/27/26)

California District Attorneys Association

Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/27/26)

California Public Defenders Association

Californians United for a Responsible Budget

Ella Baker Center for Human Rights

Justice2Jobs Coalition

La Defensa

San Francisco Public Defender

UnCommon Law

Prepared by: Stephanie Jordan / PUB. S. /

8/27/26 15:10:23

**** END ****

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 1446

Author:(Committee on Public Safety)

As Amended Ver:July 2, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Establishes procedures for en banc review of parole decisions by the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH), and extends the authority to refer individuals incarcerated in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) for a sexually violent predator (SVP) evaluation to the Executive Officer of BPH.

Major Provisions

1. Provides the decision and the vote of each commissioner for an en banc review to be a public record. 
2. Requires BPH, when reviewing a parole decision referred en banc by the Governor or by the BPH chief counsel, as specified, to do all of the following:
   1. Review the record of the hearing unless there is new information that when corrected or considered by the board has a substantial likelihood of resulting in a different decision.
   2. Defer to the hearing panel's factual findings and credibility determinations.
   3. Decide if the hearing panel's decision is supported by substantial evidence.
   4. Vote to do any of the following:
      1. Affirm the proposed decision.
      2. Order a new hearing.
      3. Rescind the proposed decision.
      4. Set the parole decision for a rescission hearing based on new information.
   5. Render a public statement of decision that shall include the vote of the commissioners.
3. Extends to the Executive Officer of BPH the authority to refer an individual, at least six months prior to that individual's scheduled release date, for an evaluation to determine if the person has a diagnosed mental health disorder so that the person is likely to engage in acts of sexual violence without appropriate treatment and custody.
4. Provides that the Secretary of CDCR or the Executive Officer of BPH shall refer an incarcerated individual for an evaluation pursuant to the above paragraph if the person is serving a determinate sentence, and may do so if the individual is serving a indeterminate sentence.
5. Adds that the referral by the Secretary of CDCR or the Executive Officer of BPH for the evaluation may be made less than six months prior to the person's scheduled release date if the incarcerated person will be scheduled for a parole hearing in the next six months.

COMMENTS

According to the Author

"For the public, the release of someone back into the community after serving a significant amount of time in custody for the conviction of serious crimes can be confusing and unsettling. That’s why California law—similar to other states—does not treat parole suitability decisions lightly.

"To be suitable, an initial parole hearing panel consisting of two commissioners must evaluate and agree whether a person will pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released from prison. Even after applying the law faithfully and evaluating all of the facts and forensic interviews, parole commissioners' decisions aren't final. They are subject to internal review, the Governor's review, and ultimately, a review by other commissioners.

"These parole decisions aren't easy and require several things to be balanced: due process rights, the public safety risk presented by the individual, victims, and the public's interest. In order to honor prior federal court decisions that required California to implement measures to reduce prison overcrowding and establish additional parole mechanisms while still providing the flexibility for the State to balance those various interests – paramount of them being public safety – SB 1446 provides additional discretion for en banc review while still ensuring those decisions are transparent in order to protect the general public."

Arguments in Support

According to the Riverside County District Attorney's Office, "This measure addresses critical gaps in current procedures governing lifer hearings and SVP referrals that directly impact community protection and confidence in the criminal justice system.

"SB 1446 would require the Board of Parole Hearings to make public the individual votes of commissioners during en banc reviews. Transparency in these proceedings is necessary to maintain public trust and ensure accountability in decisions that may result in the release of individuals convicted of serious and violent offenses. By opening these votes to public scrutiny, SB 1446 strengthens the integrity of the parole process.

"Additionally, the bill corrects longstanding inconsistencies within the SVP referral process. Current law requires the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to refer only determinately sentenced inmates for evaluation, leaving indeterminately sentenced sex offenders—often those convicted of more serious conduct—ineligible for assessment. With evolving parole eligibility rules, including elder parole considerations, many such individuals are now approaching release despite never being screened. SB 1446 closes this gap by expanding referral authority to include indeterminately sentenced inmates and permitting referrals even when less than six months remain before a scheduled release.

"These changes restore logical application of the law, align evaluation standards with modern parole realities, and ensure that individuals who pose a significant risk of reoffending are properly assessed before returning to the community."

Arguments in Opposition

According to UnCommon Law, "For decades, the Legislature has played an important role in strengthening procedural protections within this system in recognition of the significant liberty interests intrinsic to parole. SB 1446 alarmingly departs from that tradition by rolling back established safeguards, contrary to both legislative precedent and more than fifty years of California Supreme Court and Court of Appeal decisions recognizing the due process rights of parole grantees and candidates.

"SB 1446 is Unconstitutional and Violates Due Process Requirements

"SB 1446 is unconstitutional because it authorizes the Board to withdraw a parole grant without first conducting a rescission hearing (See SB 1446 (2025–2026 Reg. Sess.), proposed Pen. Code, Section 3041, subd. (e)(2)(D).) This change would violate the Due Process Clause and over fifty years of precedent set by the California Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal recognizing that a person who has been granted parole possesses a protected liberty interest such that the parole grant cannot be revoked without a rescission hearing. In re Prewitt (1972) 8 Cal.3d 470, the Supreme Court held that the Board may not rescind a parole grant without first holding a rescission hearing where the parole grantee has, among other rights, the right “to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence." (8 Cal.3d at 473, fn. 5.)

"SB 1446 would allow the Board to rescind a parole grant after only en banc review, without also holding a rescission hearing. Yet the Board’s en banc review procedures at Executive Board Meetings do not satisfy the due process rights enumerated by Prewitt. Parole grantees are prohibited from attending Executive Board Meetings, so these meetings cannot satisfy the requirement that parole grantees have an “opportunity to be heard in person.” (Prewitt, supra, 8 Cal.3d at 473, fn. 5.) Additionally, parole grantees cannot call or question witnesses at Executive Board Meetings. Although members of the public, including a parole candidate’s attorney, may provide brief statements at the meetings, those public comments are not a substitute for a parole grantee’s right to personally present and question witnesses in defense of their parole grant. Thus, the existence of the Board’s Executive Board Meeting and en banc process will not remedy the unconstitutionality of SB 1446’s amendments.

"In addition to being facially unconstitutional, this bill is particularly problematic because it codifies a two-track system of due process based on the reason one’s parole grant was referred for en banc review, without any legal basis for creating this distinction. Under SB 1446, parole grantees whose grants were referred for en banc review based on "new information" would be afforded rescission hearings, while parole grantees referred for en banc review for any other reason––such as a potentially improvident parole grant––would not. The latter group could have their parole grants reversed without the constitutionally required due process safeguards. The courts have never made such a distinction about who is entitled to a rescission hearing. They have been clear that all parole grantees, regardless of the reason one's grant is referred for additional review, possess the same due process rights. (See, e.g., In re Caswell (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1025–26 [rescission hearing required despite no new information]; In re Johnson (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 160, 171–72 [claim of no new information did not relieve Board of its duty to hold full rescission hearing].) SB 1446 creates an unconstitutional, unjust, and arbitrary two-track system of due process that unjustifiably provides required due process procedures to one group while denying them to another.

"As a result of depriving parole candidates of the aforementioned due process rights, SB 1446’s passage would invite significant litigation challenging its constitutionality and create uncertainty regarding the validity of rescission decisions made pursuant to its provisions. The roughly 1,000 parole candidates who are granted parole each year would all be in jeopardy of having their grants unconstitutionally withdrawn under SB 1446. UnCommon Law has filed multiple habeas petitions challenging both the Board’s failure to provide rescission hearings and its specific rescission hearing procedures. (See e.g., In re Dewberry, Case No. HC71769A-1, Alameda County Superior Court [failure to provide rescission hearings]; In re Hoover, Case No. A173677, First District Court of Appeal [failure to provide rescission hearings]; In re Osborne, Case No. 24CJHC00132-01, Los Angeles County Superior Court [failure to allow parole grantees to testify at rescission hearings].) SB 1446 would undoubtedly increase litigation by adding facially unconstitutional changes to Penal Code section 3041. Additionally, allowing the Board to rescind parole grants without holding a rescission hearing raises ex post facto concerns because it creates a significant risk that the elimination of due process rights will retroactively prolong a parole candidate's incarceration.

"SB 1446 Creates a Confusing and Unfair New Standard for En Banc Review

"SB 1446 also creates confusion and inconsistency by requiring the Board, during en banc review, to determine whether a hearing panel’s decision is “supported by substantial evidence.” This standard does not govern parole suitability decisions and is not otherwise used in the parole hearing process. Adding this new “substantial evidence” standard fundamentally changes the scope of en banc review from focusing on ensuring factual and legal integrity free from errors, to making a new evidentiary determination that risks duplicating and potentially contradicting a suitability analysis already conducted in the original hearing.

"The introduction of this new standard also raises serious ex post facto concerns. By creating a more onerous review standard than existed at the time of the underlying offense, SB 1446 risks prolonging incarceration based on retroactive changes that increase the likelihood a parole grant will be withdrawn.

"SB 1446 also simultaneously requires the Board during en banc review to defer to the original panel’s factual and credibility determinations. These two directives––one to defer to the hearing panel’s findings and the other to make a new evidentiary determination––are confusing and difficult to reconcile. This would encourage reweighing of evidence that has already been thoroughly considered, create inconsistent and conflicting decisions by hearing and en banc panels, and generate uncertainty about the appropriate scope of en banc review. If aiming to strengthen oversight in the en banc process, an “abuse of discretion” standard would achieve this goal more clearly while focusing review appropriately on whether the hearing panel acted reasonably in regards to public safety and within its lawful authority. As the Board’s regulations state, "The purpose of the decision review process is to assure complete, accurate, consistent and uniform decisions and the furtherance of public safety." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, Section 2042.) An "abuse of discretion” standard best adheres to this purpose.

"Finally, SB 1446 would create an unfair and illogical disparity between review of parole denials and review of parole grants. Courts reviewing parole denials apply the highly deferential "some evidence" standard, under which a parole denial will generally be upheld if the court finds even a small modicum of evidence supporting the Board's finding of current dangerousness. Because en banc review is used primarily to review parole grants, while parole denials are generally reviewed through habeas petitions in court, SB 1446 would subject parole grants to a substantially more searching level of review than parole denials. The practical effect is an asymmetrical review system in which denials are rarely overturned, while parole grants face heightened scrutiny and a significantly higher likelihood of reversal. This asymmetry is unfair, lacks principled rationale, and appears to be designed primarily to advance the political objective of more easily reversing controversial parole grants.

"Making Individual Commissioner En Banc Votes Public Would Compromise the Independence of the Board

"The en banc process is intended as a safeguard to ensure parole decisions are legally and factually sound. When the Board or the Governor identify an error or significant new information that could materially impact a parole decision, they refer the case for an "en banc" review, which is a second look by the full Board to determine whether the hearing decision holds up against those identified issues. This process works best when commissioners are given the independence to review parole decisions without fear of political backlash.

"Making individual commissioner votes in en banc review public, particularly in highprofile cases, exposes them to public scrutiny and targeted pressure from elected officials, media, and advocacy groups with interests that extend beyond the public safety risk of the incarcerated person being considered. Public disclosure of individual votes risks placing pressure on commissioners to vote defensively in controversial matters rather than according to the evidence and governing law, shifting focus from the legal and public safety merits of a parole decision to the political consequences of voting to uphold it.

"Courts have long recognized the danger of allowing public opinion to influence parole decisions. In In re Fain, the court emphasized that "'[i]t is undeniable that public outrage over an imminent parole determination ... has no place in a parole proceeding and is to be given no weight in a parole decision.'" (In re Fain (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 295, 307–308, quoting In re Trantino Parole Application (1982) 89 N.J. 347, 446 A.2d 104, 119.) The court further warned that “[j]ust as the decision-making process of judges must be kept free from fear, so must that of parole board officials" because "[w]ithout this protection, there is the same danger that the decision-maker might not impartially adjudicate the often difficult cases that come before them," (Id. at p. 309, quoting Sellars v. Procunier (9th Cir.1981) 641 F.2d 1295, 1303, emphasis added in Fain.)

"We have already seen this very danger play out in a recent Senate hearing to confirm Governor appointees to the parole board, where individual parole commissioners were asked to disclose their en banc votes in a specific high-profile case. This exchange clearly conveyed the message that an unpopular vote––even if it has legal integrity and upholds public safety––could cost commissioners their appointments and careers.

"Expanding the SVP Program for People with Indeterminate Sentences is Duplicative, Costly, and Will Not Improve Public Safety

"SB 1446's expansion of the Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) program to apply to people with indeterminate sentences is unnecessary and counterproductive. The parole board already conducts thorough, structured assessments of risk before granting parole, rendering parallel SVP referrals duplicative. For people with sexual convictions, both the parole suitability and supervision processes additionally require the administration of research-validated, actuarial risk instruments specifically for assessing sexual re-offense risk, including the Static-99R and the STABLE 2007. These redundancies are why the SVP program has never thus far applied to people with indeterminate sentences.

"The SVP program is among the most inefficient and costly public safety systems in the state, as SVP proceedings are notoriously resource-intensive, often involving years of litigation, multiple expert evaluations, and extended detention. The Senate estimates this bill will add at least an additional $14 million to $25 million in already exorbitant annual costs, a resource strain that is unjustifiable without any demonstrated public safety benefit."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Ongoing costs of approximately $15.1 million to $25.8 million annually (General Fund) to the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) for additional SVP evaluations and treatment of additional committed patients.

For individuals serving indeterminate sentences, DSH assumes BPH would refer at the same rate CDCR currently refers individuals already granted parole, producing approximately 250 additional referrals and 500 evaluations annually. DSH estimates $3.87 million annually for that workload, reflecting ten SVP evaluators, one chief psychologist, one supervisor, two analysts, and 50 additional independent evaluations where the initial evaluators disagree. Assuming 10% to 20% of evaluations result in positive determinations, commitments would increase by approximately 25 to 50 patients annually, for treatment costs of approximately $10.23 million to $20.46 million at an average inpatient cost of $1,121 per day.

DSH identifies a second affected population. Because the bill permits referral in advance of a parole hearing rather than only following a grant of parole, determinately sentenced individuals eligible for the Elderly Parole Program with qualifying offenses would be evaluated earlier in the process. DSH estimates approximately 10 additional referrals annually at a cost of approximately $307,000, with treatment costs of approximately $409,000 to $818,000 for one to two additional patients. DSH states that available units at DSH-Coalinga, where SVPs are held, are fully activated, that accommodating additional SVP patients may require relocating other patient populations, and that contracting for additional bed capacity would carry costs of an unknown amount. As of March 2026, DSH had a population of 954 SVP patients, and average length of stay is approximately 12 years, so commitments added in the budget year carry forward for more than a decade. Notably, DSH assumes referrals will occur at current rates even though referral of indeterminately sentenced individuals is permissive rather than mandatory under this bill. Actual costs will depend on how BPH exercises that discretion.

1. Potential court cost pressures of an unknown, but potentially significant amount (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund), to the extent additional referrals result in additional SVP commitment petitions, probable cause hearings, and commitment trials in superior court. SVP proceedings are resource-intensive and frequently involve protracted litigation and multiple expert evaluations, and a commitment trial may occur well after the petition is filed.
2. Costs of an unknown amount to counties (county General Fund) for district attorneys or county counsel to file and handle additional SVP petitions, and for indigent defense in those proceedings. Counties designate either the district attorney or county counsel to assume responsibility for SVP proceedings. The bill contains a provision directing reimbursement if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state.

VOTES

SENATE FLOOR: 33-0-7

YES: Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Ochoa Bogh, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

ABS, ABST OR NV: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Becker, Hurtado, Niello, Padilla, Stern

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 9-0-0

YES: Schultz, Alanis, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Lackey, Nguyen, Ramos, Sharp-Collins

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0

YES: Wicks, Hoover, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Dixon, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pacheco, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Ta, Tangipa

UPDATED

VERSION: July 2, 2026

CONSULTANT: Andrew Ironside / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0003514

Date of Hearing: August 5, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1446

Author:(Committee on Public Safety) – As Amended Ver:July 2, 2026

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes

SUMMARY:

This bill revises the procedures governing en banc review of parole decisions by the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) and expands the authority to refer incarcerated individuals for evaluation as sexually violent predators (SVPs).

Specifically, this bill:

1. Makes both the decision and the vote of the commissioners in an en banc review a public record.
2. Requires BPH, when reviewing a parole grant referred en banc following the board’s 120-day decision review, to determine whether there was a material error of law or fact, or new information that, when corrected or considered, has a substantial likelihood of resulting in a different decision upon rehearing, and to vote to either affirm the decision or vacate the decision and set a new hearing.
3. Requires BPH, when reviewing a parole decision referred en banc by the Governor, to address the Governor’s stated reasons for the requested review, and to vote to affirm the decision, refer the decision for a rescission hearing for lack of substantial evidence, or, in the case of a parole denial, vacate the decision and set a new hearing.
4. Authorizes the Executive Officer of BPH, in addition to the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), to refer an individual in CDCR custody for an SVP evaluation, and extends referral authority to individuals serving indeterminate sentences.
5. Authorizes a referral less than six months before an individual’s scheduled release date if the individual will be scheduled for a parole hearing in the next six months, or if the scheduled release date falls less than six months after a grant of parole.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Ongoing costs of approximately $15.1 million to $25.8 million annually (General Fund) to the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) for additional SVP evaluations and treatment of additional committed patients.

For individuals serving indeterminate sentences, DSH assumes BPH would refer at the same rate CDCR currently refers individuals already granted parole, producing approximately 250 additional referrals and 500 evaluations annually. DSH estimates $3.87 million annually for that workload, reflecting ten SVP evaluators, one chief psychologist, one supervisor, two analysts, and 50 additional independent evaluations where the initial evaluators disagree. Assuming 10% to 20% of evaluations result in positive determinations, commitments would increase by approximately 25 to 50 patients annually, for treatment costs of approximately $10.23 million to $20.46 million at an average inpatient cost of $1,121 per day.

DSH identifies a second affected population. Because the bill permits referral in advance of a parole hearing rather than only following a grant of parole, determinately sentenced individuals eligible for the Elderly Parole Program with qualifying offenses would be evaluated earlier in the process. DSH estimates approximately 10 additional referrals annually at a cost of approximately $307,000, with treatment costs of approximately $409,000 to $818,000 for one to two additional patients. DSH states that available units at DSH-Coalinga, where SVPs are held, are fully activated, that accommodating additional SVP patients may require relocating other patient populations, and that contracting for additional bed capacity would carry costs of an unknown amount. As of March 2026, DSH had a population of 954 SVP patients, and average length of stay is approximately 12 years, so commitments added in the budget year carry forward for more than a decade. Notably, DSH assumes referrals will occur at current rates even though referral of indeterminately sentenced individuals is permissive rather than mandatory under this bill. Actual costs will depend on how BPH exercises that discretion.

1. Potential court cost pressures of an unknown, but potentially significant amount (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund), to the extent additional referrals result in additional SVP commitment petitions, probable cause hearings, and commitment trials in superior court. SVP proceedings are resource-intensive and frequently involve protracted litigation and multiple expert evaluations, and a commitment trial may occur well after the petition is filed.
2. Costs of an unknown amount to counties (county General Fund) for district attorneys or county counsel to file and handle additional SVP petitions, and for indigent defense in those proceedings. Counties designate either the district attorney or county counsel to assume responsibility for SVP proceedings. The bill contains a provision directing reimbursement if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

These parole decisions aren’t easy and require several things to be balanced: due process rights, the public safety risk presented by the individual, victims, and the public's interest. … SB 1446 provides additional discretion for en banc review while still ensuring those decisions are transparent in order to protect the general public.

1. Background. En Banc Review. Under existing law, a person serving an indeterminate sentence (a prison term expressed as a range with no fixed release date, for example, “15 years to life”) must be granted parole by BPH in order to be released. A panel of two or more commissioners conducts the suitability hearing and must grant parole unless public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration; the controlling question is whether the person currently poses an unreasonable risk of danger if released. An en banc review is a second look at a panel decision by a majority of the commissioners holding office, conducted at BPH’s monthly public meetings. Cases arrive by several paths, including a tie vote, a request by a member of the hearing panel, referral by the board following its review of a grant during the 120-day period before the decision becomes final, and a request by the Governor. Existing law prescribes procedures for tie-vote reviews only, and this bill supplies separate procedures for board-referred grants and for Governor referrals. Notably, the bill does not carry the existing record limitation into those procedures, which contain no express restriction on what the board may consider.

Opposition, including UnCommon Law and the Post-Conviction Justice Project at the USC Gould School of Law, argues that making the board’s en banc votes a public record would expose commissioners to political pressure, and that requiring the board to determine whether a Governor-referred grant is supported by substantial evidence imports a standard foreign to the parole process and would likely require a full due process hearing in every such case. To the extent the bill is challenged in court, any defense costs would be borne by the Department of Justice.

SVP Referrals. The Sexually Violent Predator Act authorizes the involuntary civil commitment, for an indeterminate term, of a person convicted of a sexually violent offense who has a diagnosed mental disorder making the person likely to reoffend. Commitment begins only after the prison term is complete. Under existing law, the Secretary of CDCR must refer a person who may qualify for evaluation at least six months before release, but only where the person is serving a determinate sentence or has had parole revoked. CDCR and BPH screen the person to determine whether they are likely to be a sexually violent predator, DSH evaluates those referred using two clinicians, and where both concur DSH requests that the designated county district attorney or county counsel file a commitment petition, which that office may then file for adjudication in superior court. Notably, this bill makes referral of indeterminately sentenced persons permissive rather than mandatory, so the volume of evaluations and commitments will depend on how BPH exercises that discretion.

The Riverside County District Attorney’s Office, in support, states that indeterminately sentenced sex offenders are currently ineligible for assessment and that expanding parole eligibility has brought many toward release without ever having been screened. UnCommon Law, in opposition, argues the expansion is duplicative of the validated risk instruments BPH already administers, and that SVP proceedings are among the most resource-intensive in the state system.

1. Related Legislation. AB 2727 (Nguyen) would delay elderly parole eligibility for persons sentenced for specified sex offenses and would also expand SVP referral authority. AB 2727 is pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
2. Prior Legislation. AB 47 (Nguyen), of this legislative session, delays elderly parole eligibility for persons sentenced for a one-strike sex offense or as a habitual sex offender. AB 47 was held on this committee’s suspense file.

AB 3234 (Ting), Chapter 334, Statutes of 2020, lowered the elderly parole age threshold to 50 years with a minimum of 20 years served.

AB 1448 (Weber), Chapter 676, Statutes of 2017, codified the Elderly Parole Program.

Analysis Prepared by: Shiran Zohar / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: June 30, 2026

Chief Counsel: Andrew Ironside

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Nick Schultz, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1446

Author:(Committee on Public Safety) – As Amended Ver:April 27, 2026

SUMMARY: Establishes procedures for en banc review of parole decisions by the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH), and extends the authority to refer individuals incarcerated in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) for a sexually violent predator (SVP) evaluation to the Executive Officer of BPH. Specifically, this bill:

1. Provides the decision and the vote of each commissioner for an en banc review to be a public record. 
2. Requires BPH, when reviewing a parole decision referred en banc by the Governor or by the BPH chief counsel, as specified, to do all of the following 
   
   1. Review the record of the hearing unless there is new information that when corrected or considered by the board has a substantial likelihood of resulting in a different decision.
      
   2. Defer to the hearing panel’s factual findings and credibility determinations.
      
   3. Decide if the hearing panel’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.
      
   4. Vote to do any of the following:
      
      1. Affirm the proposed decision.
         
      2. Order a new hearing.
         
      3. Rescind the proposed decision.
         
      4. Set the parole decision for a rescission hearing based on new information.
         
   5. Render a public statement of decision that shall include the vote of the commissioners.
      
3. Extends to the Executive Officer of BPH the authority to refer an individual, at least six months prior to that individual’s scheduled release date, for an evaluation to determine if the person has a diagnosed mental health disorder so that the person is likely to engage in acts of sexual violence without appropriate treatment and custody.
   
4. Provides that the Secretary of CDCR or the Executive Officer of BPH shall refer an incarcerated individual for an evaluation pursuant to the above paragraph if the person is serving a determinate sentence, and may do so if the individual is serving a indeterminate sentence.
5. Adds that the referral by the Secretary of CDCR or the Executive Officer of BPH for the evaluation may be made less than six months prior to the person’s scheduled release date if the incarcerated person will be scheduled for a parole hearing in the next six months.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires BPH to meet with each incarcerated person during the sixth year prior to the person’s minimum eligible parole date (MEPD) for the purposes of reviewing and documenting the person’s activities and conduct pertinent to parole eligibility. Requires that the BPH provide the incarcerated person with information about the parole hearing process, legal factors relevant to their suitability or unsuitability for parole, and individualized recommendations for the person regarding their work assignments, rehabilitative programs, and institutional behavior during the consultation. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (a)(1).)
   
2. Provides that one year prior to the incarcerated person’s MEPD, a panel of two or more commissioners or deputy commissioners must meet with the person and shall normally grant parole. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (a)(2).)
   
3. Requires, in the event of a tie vote, the matter to be referred for an en banc review of the record that was before the panel that rendered the tie vote. Requires the board to vote to either grant or deny parole and render a statement of decision upon en banc review. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (a)(3).)
   
4. Requires that an incarcerated person be released upon a grant of parole, subject to all applicable review periods. Prohibits the release of an incarcerated person who has not reached their MEPD unless the person is eligible for earlier release pursuant to their youth offender parole eligibility date or elderly parole eligible date. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (a)(4).)
   
5. Requires the panel or board, sitting en banc, to grant parole to an incarcerated person unless it determines that the gravity of the current convicted offense or offenses, or the timing and gravity of current or past convicted offense or offenses, is such that consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration for this individual. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (b)(1).)
   
6. Requires that any decision of the parole panel finding an incarcerated individual suitable for parole becomes final within 120 days of the date of the hearing. Authorizes the board to review the panel’s decision during that period. Requires the panel’s decision to become final pursuant unless the board finds that the panel made an error of law, or that the panel’s decision was based on an error of fact, or that new information should be presented to the board, any of which when corrected or considered by the board has a substantial likelihood of resulting in a substantially different decision upon a rehearing. Requires the board to consult with the commissioners who conducted the parole consideration hearing in making this determination. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (b)(2).)
   
7. Prohibits a decision of a panel from being disapproved and referred for rehearing except by a majority vote of the board, sitting en banc, following a public meeting. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (b)(3).)
   
8. Provides that an en banc review by the board means a review conducted by a majority of commissioners holding office on the date the matter is heard by the board. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (e).)
   
9. Requires that an en banc review be conducted in compliance with the following:
   
   1. The commissioners conducting the review must consider the entire record of the hearing that resulted in the tie vote.
      
   2. The review must be limited to the record of the hearing. Requires the record to consist of the transcript or audiotape of the hearing, written or electronically recorded statements actually considered by the panel that produced the tie vote, and any other material actually considered by the panel. Prohibits new evidence or comments from being considered in the en banc proceeding.
      
   3. The board must separately state reasons for its decision to grant or deny parole.
      
   4. A commissioner who was involved in the tie vote must be recused from consideration of the matter in the en banc review. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (e).)
      
10. Authorizes the Governor, any time before an incarcerated person’s release, to request review of a decision by a parole authority concerning the grant or denial of parole to any inmate in a state prison. Requires the Governor to state the reason or reasons for the request, and whether the request is based on a public safety concern, a concern that the gravity of current or past convicted offenses may have been given inadequate consideration, or on other factors. (Pen. Code, § 3041.1, subd. (a).)
    
11. Requires the request, if one has been made, to be reviewed by a majority of commissioners specifically appointed to hear adult parole matters and who are holding office at the time. Requires, in case of a review, a vote in favor of parole by a majority of the commissioners reviewing the request to be required to grant parole to any incarcerated person. (Pen. Code, § 3041.1, subd. (b).)
    
12. Provides for the civil commitment for psychiatric and psychological treatment of an individual incarcerated in state prison found to be a sexually violent predator (SVP) after the person has served his or her prison commitment. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600, et seq.)
    
13. Defines a “sexually violent predator” as “a person who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense against one or more victims and who has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes the person a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that he or she will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600, subd. (a)(1).)
    
14. Requires the Secretary of CDCR, when they have determined that an individual who is in custody (who is either serving a determinate prison sentence or whose parole has been revoked, and who is not in custody for the commission of a new offense committed while the individual was serving an indeterminate term in a state hospital as an SVP) may be an SVP, to refer the person for evaluation at least six months prior to that individual’s scheduled release date for release from prison. Allows the referral to be made less than six months prior to the person’s scheduled release date if the person was received by CDCR with less than nine months of their sentence to serve, or if the person’s release date is modified by judicial or administrative action. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6601, subd. (a)(1).)
    
15. Permits a person committed as an SVP to be held for an indeterminate term upon commitment. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 6604 & 6604.1.)
    
16. Requires that a person found to have been an SVP and committed to the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) have a current examination on their mental condition made at least yearly. Requires the report to include consideration of whether the committed person currently meets the definition of an SVP and whether conditional release to a less restrictive alternative or an unconditional discharge is in the best interest of the person and conditions can be imposed that would adequately protect the community. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6604.9, subds. (a) & (b).)
    
17. Outlines a process for the conditional release to a less restrictive alternative or for an unconditional discharge, as specified. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 6604.9, 6607, 6608, 6608.5, 6608.6, 6609.1; Pen. Code, § 1605, subd. (a).)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS:

1. Sponsor: Author-sponsored.
   
2. Author's Statement: According to the author, “For the public, the release of someone back into the community after serving a significant amount of time in custody for the conviction of serious crimes can be confusing and unsettling. That’s why California law—similar to other states—does not treat parole suitability decisions lightly.
   
   “To be suitable, an initial parole hearing panel consisting of two commissioners must evaluate and agree whether a person will pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released from prison. Even after applying the law faithfully and evaluating all of the facts and forensic interviews, parole commissioners’ decisions aren’t final. They are subject to internal review, the Governor’s review, and ultimately, a review by other commissioners.
   
   “These parole decisions aren’t easy and require several things to be balanced: due process rights, the public safety risk presented by the individual, victims, and the public’s interest. In order to honor prior federal court decisions that required California to implement measures to reduce prison overcrowding and establish additional parole mechanisms while still providing the flexibility for the State to balance those various interests – paramount of them being public safety – SB 1446 provides additional discretion for en banc review while still ensuring those decisions are transparent in order to protect the general public.”
   
3. Parole Suitability: Incarcerated individuals who are indeterminately sentenced must be granted parole by the BPH in order to be released from prison. The Penal Code provides that the parole board “shall grant parole to an inmate unless it determines that the gravity of the current convicted offense or offenses, or the timing and gravity of current or past convicted offense or offenses, is such that consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration for this individual.” (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (b).) The fundamental consideration when making a determination about an individual’s suitability for parole is whether the individual currently poses an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released from prison. (In re Shaputis (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1241.) The decision whether to grant parole is an inherently subjective determination. (In re Rosenkrantz (2002) 29 Cal.4th 616, 655.)
   
   In deciding whether to grant parole, the BPH must consider all relevant and reliable information available. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2281, subd. (b).) Factors the BPH must consider include the nature of the commitment offense, including the circumstances of the person’s social history; past and present mental state; past criminal history, including involvement in other criminal misconduct which is reliably documented; the base and other commitment offenses, including behavior before, during and after the crime; past and present attitude toward the crime; any conditions of treatment or control, including the use of special conditions under which the individual may safely be released to the community; and any other information which bears on the individual’s suitability for release. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, §§ 2281, subd. (b).) The regulations further state that “[c]ircumstances which taken alone may not firmly establish unsuitability for parole may contribute to a pattern which results in a finding of unsuitability.” (Ibid.)
   
   Although the parole board is required to consider the circumstances of the offense, the California Supreme Court has held that the parole board may not rely solely on the commitment offense when deciding to grant parole unless the circumstances of the offense “continue to be predictive of current dangerousness.” (In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181, 1221.) The parole board is prohibited from requiring an admission of guilt to any crime for which an incarcerated person was committed to CDCR when considering whether to grant an inmate parole. (Pen. Code, § 5011, subd. (b).) However, “an implausible denial of guilt may support a finding of current dangerousness, without in any sense requiring the inmate to admit guilt as a condition of parole….it is not the failure to admit guilt that reflects a lack of insight, but the fact that the denial is factually unsupported or otherwise lacking in credibility.” (In re Shaputis (2011) 53 Cal.4th 192, 216.) Although the term “insight” is not explicitly included in the regulations, the regulations “direct the Board to consider the inmate’s ‘past and present attitude toward the crime’ and ‘the presence of remorse,’ expressly including indications that the inmate ‘understands the nature and magnitude of the offense’.… fit[ting] comfortably within the descriptive category of ‘insight.’” (Id. at 218 (citations omitted).)
   
   Additional guidance for making parole suitability determinations is provided in the regulations which list circumstances tending to show suitability and those tending to show unsuitability. The following circumstances tend to show unsuitability for release include that the person committed the offense in an especially heinous, atrocious or cruel manner; the person on previous occasions inflicted or attempted to inflict serious injury on a victim, particularly if the incarcerated person demonstrated serious assaultive behavior at an early age; the person has a history of unstable or tumultuous relationships with others; the person has previously sexually assaulted another in a manner calculated to inflict unusual pain or fear upon the victim; the person has a lengthy history of severe mental problems related to the offense; and the person has engaged in serious misconduct in prison or jail. (Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 15, § 2281, subd. (c).)
   
   Circumstances tending to show suitability include that the person does not have a record of assaulting others as a juvenile or committing crimes with a potential of personal harm to victims; the person has experienced reasonably stable relationships with others; the person performed acts which tend to indicate the presence of remorse, such as attempting to repair the damage, seeking help for or relieving suffering of the victim, or indicating that he understands the nature and magnitude of the offense; the person committed his or her crime as the result of significant stress in his or her life, especially if the stress has built over a long period of time; at the time of the commission of the crime, the person suffered from Battered Woman Syndrome, as defined, and it appears the criminal behavior was the result of that victimization; the person lacks any significant history of violent crime; the person’s present age reduces the probability of recidivism; the person has made realistic plans for release or has developed marketable skills that can be put to use upon release; institutional activities indicate an enhanced ability to function within the law upon release. (Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 15, § 2281, subd. (d).)
   
   The circumstances which tend to show suitability and unsuitability for parole are set forth as general guidelines, and the importance attached to any circumstance or combination of circumstances in a particular case is left to the judgment of the panel. (Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 15, § 2281, subds. (c) & (d).)
   
4. En Banc Review of a BPH Decision: Cases are referred for en banc review when a parole suitability hearing ends with a tie vote regarding whether to grant the person parole (occurs when there is a two-person hearing panel), when the Chief Counsel of BPH refers the case, and when the Governor requests review of a parole decision. (Pen. Code, §§ 3041, subds. (a), (b), (e); 3041.1.) Under Penal Code section 3041, subdivision (a)(5), a member of the hearing panel may also refer a case for en banc review. The Board meets monthly over a few days at its headquarters in Sacramento to manage the Board’s business, including reviewing cases that are referred for en banc review. BPH’s Parole Hearing Process Handbook describes the monthly executive meetings as follows:
   

The Board holds an executive board meeting each month, which is open to the public. The meetings are conducted over two or more days. Members of the public may attend in person, by video, or by phone, as indicated on the meeting agenda. The meeting agenda, including all the decisions or “cases” that will be considered at the meeting, is posted on the Board’s website at least 10 calendar days before the date of the meeting. For all cases listed on the agenda, the Board notifies the incarcerated person, their attorney, the prosecutor, and any registered victims and victims’ family members. At the monthly executive board meeting, panels of commissioners hear public comment on the cases. Comments may be submitted in writing to the Board before the meeting. Those who want to speak during the meeting may attend the meeting and provide their comments. Comments are generally limited to two minutes per speaker. Once public comments have been received, the Board goes into closed session to deliberate and vote on each case.^[1]

The Board consists of 21 parole commissioners. (Gov. Code, § 12838.4.) Penal Code section 3041, subdivision (e), provides that an en banc review by the board means “a review conducted by a majority of commissioners holding office on the date the matter is heard by the board.” Section 3041 requires an en banc review to comply with the following: the commissioners conducting the review must consider the entire record of the hearing that resulted in the tie vote; the review must be limited to the record of the hearing; the board must separately state reasons for its decision to grant or deny parole; and a commissioner who was involved in the tie vote must be recused from consideration of the matter in the en banc review.

The agenda for the monthly executive meeting typically divides agenda items to be voted on between two groups of commissioners with each group consisting of a majority of commissioners (i.e., more than half of the total number of commissioners but fewer than the entire board). ^[2]

1. Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA): Enacted in 1996, the SVPA authorizes an involuntary civil commitment of any person “who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense … and who has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes the person a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that he or she will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6601, subd. (a).) The SVPA was designed to accomplish the dual goals of protecting the public, by confining violent sexual predators likely to reoffend, and providing treatment to those offenders. “Those committed pursuant to the SVPA are to be treated not as criminals, but as sick persons. They are to receive treatment for their disorders and must be released when they no longer constitute a threat to society.” (People v. Superior Court (Karsai) (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 774, 783, citing Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6250.)
   
   Civil commitment is not a prison sentence. Once a person has been deemed no longer a threat to public safety, they must, as a matter of law, be released from custody. Involuntary commitment under the SVPA only begins after a person has completed their prison sentence. Originally, the SVP laws provided for an initial commitment of two years and then a review every two years thereafter. However, effective September 20, 2006, the law now provides for indeterminate commitments for persons found to be sexually violent predators. (Welf. & Inst. Code § 6604.)
   
   An SVP is a person convicted of specified sex offenses against at least one person and who has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes the person a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that he or she will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600, subd. (a)(1).) Welfare and Institutions Code, section 6600 further defines a sexually violent predator as someone who suffered the following: a prior or current conviction that resulted in a determinate prison sentence for a sexually violent offense; conviction for a sexually violent offense that was committed prior to July 1, 1977, and that resulted in an indeterminate prison sentence; a prior conviction in another jurisdiction for an offense that includes all of the elements of a sexually violent offense; a conviction for an offense under a predecessor statute that includes all of the elements of a sexually violent offense; a prior conviction for which the inmate received a grant of probation for a sexually violent offense; a prior finding of not guilty by reason of insanity for a sexually violent offense; a conviction resulting in a finding that the person was a mentally disordered sex offender; a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense for which the person was committed to the Division of Juvenile Facilities, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, as specified; or, a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense that resulted in an indeterminate prison sentence. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600, subd. (a)(1)(A-I).)

A sexually violent offense means any of the following crimes when committed by force, violence, duress, menace, fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person, or threatening to retaliate in the future against the victim or any other person, and that are committed on, before, or after the effective date of the SVPA and resulted in a conviction or a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity: (i) a felony violation of rape, (ii) former provision of spousal rape, (iii) aiding abetting rape or sexual penetration, (iv) aggravated sexual assault of a child, (v) sodomy, (vi) forcible oral copulation, (vii) child molestation, (viii) continuous sexual abuse of a child, or (ix) sexual penetration, or (x) former provision on child molest, or any felony violation of (xi) kidnapping, (xii) kidnapping with intent to commit robbery or rape, or (xiii) assault with intent to commit rape, (xiv) former provision of spousal rape, (xv) aiding and abetting rape, (xvi) sodomy, (xvii) forcible oral copulation, (xviii) child molest, or (xix) sexual penetration. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600, subd. (b).)

When the CDCR determines that an inmate “may be a sexually violent predator,” the CDCR Secretary refers the inmate to the DSH for a thorough evaluation. (Hubbart v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1138, 1145; Welf. & Inst., § 6601, subd. (b).) A “diagnosed mental disorder” for purposes of determining whether someone is an SVP means a “congenital or acquired condition affecting the emotional or volitional capacity that predisposes the person to the commission of criminal sexual acts in a degree constituting the person a menace to the health and safety of others.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600, subd. (c).)

An evaluation “must be conducted by at least two practicing psychiatrists or psychologists in accordance with a standardized assessment protocol[.]” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6601, subd. (c)-(d).) If the two evaluators agree the inmate is likely to reoffend without treatment or custody due to their mental disorder, the Director of DSH must request a petition for commitment pursuant to the Welfare and Institutions Code section 6602 to the county in which the inmate was last convicted. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6601, subd. (d).) Thereafter, the county district attorney will file a petition for civil commitment. Due process requires any deprivation of liberty by the state to first provide notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

Accordingly, a court then reviews the petition and determines whether there is probable cause to believe the inmate “is likely to engage in sexually violent predatory criminal behavior upon their release. If the court or jury determines that the person is a sexually violent predator, the person [is] committed for an indeterminate term” to a state mental hospital “for appropriate treatment and confinement.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6604.)

The burden then shifts to the “offender seeking his or her release from an SVPA commitment” to prove he or she is no longer a significant risk to society.^[3]

If the Director of DSH determines that the inmate’s diagnosed mental disorder has so changed that the inmate is not likely to commit acts of predatory sexual violence while under supervision and treatment in the community, the Director will forward a report and recommendation for conditional release. If the court at the hearing determines that the SVP would not be a danger to others due to his or her diagnosed mental disorder while under supervision and treatment in the community, the court will order the person placed with an appropriate forensic conditional release program operated by the state for one year, a substantial portion of which is required to include outpatient supervision and treatment. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608, subd. (f).)

After a judicial determination that a person would not be a danger to the health and safety of others (i.e., in that it is not likely that the person will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior due to the person’s diagnosed mental disorder while under supervision and treatment in the community), they will be placed in their pre-incarceration county of domicile, unless the court finds that extraordinary circumstances require placement outside the county domicile. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608.5, subd. (a); see Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608.5, subd. (b).)

1. Argument in Support: According to the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office, “This measure addresses critical gaps in current procedures governing lifer hearings and SVP referrals that directly impact community protection and confidence in the criminal justice system.
   
   “SB 1446 would require the Board of Parole Hearings to make public the individual votes of commissioners during en banc reviews. Transparency in these proceedings is necessary to maintain public trust and ensure accountability in decisions that may result in the release of individuals convicted of serious and violent offenses. By opening these votes to public scrutiny, SB 1446 strengthens the integrity of the parole process.
   
   “Additionally, the bill corrects longstanding inconsistencies within the SVP referral process. Current law requires the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to refer only determinately sentenced inmates for evaluation, leaving indeterminately sentenced sex offenders—often those convicted of more serious conduct—ineligible for assessment. With evolving parole eligibility rules, including elder parole considerations, many such individuals are now approaching release despite never being screened. SB 1446 closes this gap by expanding referral authority to include indeterminately sentenced inmates and permitting referrals even when less than six months remain before a scheduled release.
   
   “These changes restore logical application of the law, align evaluation standards with modern parole realities, and ensure that individuals who pose a significant risk of reoffending are properly assessed before returning to the community.”
   
2. Argument in Opposition: According to UnCommon Law, “For decades, the Legislature has played an important role in strengthening procedural protections within this system in recognition of the significant liberty interests intrinsic to parole. SB 1446 alarmingly departs from that tradition by rolling back established safeguards, contrary to both legislative precedent and more than fifty years of California Supreme Court and Court of Appeal decisions recognizing the due process rights of parole grantees and candidates.
   
   “SB 1446 is Unconstitutional and Violates Due Process Requirements
   
   “SB 1446 is unconstitutional because it authorizes the Board to withdraw a parole grant without first conducting a rescission hearing (See SB 1446 (2025–2026 Reg. Sess.), proposed Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (e)(2)(D).) This change would violate the Due Process Clause and over fifty years of precedent set by the California Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal recognizing that a person who has been granted parole possesses a protected liberty interest such that the parole grant cannot be revoked without a rescission hearing. In In re Prewitt (1972) 8 Cal.3d 470, the Supreme Court held that the Board may not rescind a parole grant without first holding a rescission hearing where the parole grantee has, among other rights, the right “to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence.” (8 Cal.3d at 473, fn. 5.)
   
   “SB 1446 would allow the Board to rescind a parole grant after only en banc review, without also holding a rescission hearing. Yet the Board’s en banc review procedures at Executive Board Meetings do not satisfy the due process rights enumerated by Prewitt. Parole grantees are prohibited from attending Executive Board Meetings, so these meetings cannot satisfy the requirement that parole grantees have an “opportunity to be heard in person.” (Prewitt, supra, 8 Cal.3d at 473, fn. 5.) Additionally, parole grantees cannot call or question witnesses at Executive Board Meetings. Although members of the public, including a parole candidate’s attorney, may provide brief statements at the meetings, those public comments are not a substitute for a parole grantee’s right to personally present and question witnesses in defense of their parole grant. Thus, the existence of the Board’s Executive Board Meeting and en banc process will not remedy the unconstitutionality of SB 1446’s amendments.
   
   “In addition to being facially unconstitutional, this bill is particularly problematic because it codifies a two-track system of due process based on the reason one’s parole grant was referred for en banc review, without any legal basis for creating this distinction. Under SB 1446, parole grantees whose grants were referred for en banc review based on “new information” would be afforded rescission hearings, while parole grantees referred for en banc review for any other reason––such as a potentially improvident parole grant––would not. The latter group could have their parole grants reversed without the constitutionally required due process safeguards. The courts have never made such a distinction about who is entitled to a rescission hearing. They have been clear that all parole grantees, regardless of the reason one’s grant is referred for additional review, possess the same due process rights. (See, e.g., In re Caswell (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1025–26 [rescission hearing required despite no new information]; In re Johnson (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 160, 171–72 [claim of no new information did not relieve Board of its duty to hold full rescission hearing].) SB 1446 creates an unconstitutional, unjust, and arbitrary two-track system of due process that unjustifiably provides required due process procedures to one group while denying them to another.
   
   “As a result of depriving parole candidates of the aforementioned due process rights, SB 1446’s passage would invite significant litigation challenging its constitutionality and create uncertainty regarding the validity of rescission decisions made pursuant to its provisions. The roughly 1,000 parole candidates who are granted parole each year would all be in jeopardy of having their grants unconstitutionally withdrawn under SB 1446. UnCommon Law has filed multiple habeas petitions challenging both the Board’s failure to provide rescission hearings and its specific rescission hearing procedures. (See e.g., In re Dewberry, Case No. HC71769A-1, Alameda County Superior Court [failure to provide rescission hearings]; In re Hoover, Case No. A173677, First District Court of Appeal [failure to provide rescission hearings]; In re Osborne, Case No. 24CJHC00132-01, Los Angeles County Superior Court [failure to allow parole grantees to testify at rescission hearings].) SB 1446 would undoubtedly increase litigation by adding facially unconstitutional changes to Penal Code section 3041. Additionally, allowing the Board to rescind parole grants without holding a rescission hearing raises ex post facto concerns because it creates a significant risk that the elimination of due process rights will retroactively prolong a parole candidate’s incarceration.
   
   “SB 1446 Creates a Confusing and Unfair New Standard for En Banc Review
   
   “SB 1446 also creates confusion and inconsistency by requiring the Board, during en banc review, to determine whether a hearing panel’s decision is “supported by substantial evidence.” This standard does not govern parole suitability decisions and is not otherwise used in the parole hearing process. Adding this new “substantial evidence” standard fundamentally changes the scope of en banc review from focusing on ensuring factual and legal integrity free from errors, to making a new evidentiary determination that risks duplicating and potentially contradicting a suitability analysis already conducted in the original hearing.
   
   “The introduction of this new standard also raises serious ex post facto concerns. By creating a more onerous review standard than existed at the time of the underlying offense, SB 1446 risks prolonging incarceration based on retroactive changes that increase the likelihood a parole grant will be withdrawn.
   
   “SB 1446 also simultaneously requires the Board during en banc review to defer to the original panel’s factual and credibility determinations. These two directives––one to defer to the hearing panel’s findings and the other to make a new evidentiary determination––are confusing and difficult to reconcile. This would encourage reweighing of evidence that has already been thoroughly considered, create inconsistent and conflicting decisions by hearing and en banc panels, and generate uncertainty about the appropriate scope of en banc review. If aiming to strengthen oversight in the en banc process, an “abuse of discretion” standard would achieve this goal more clearly while focusing review appropriately on whether the hearing panel acted reasonably in regards to public safety and within its lawful authority. As the Board’s regulations state, “The purpose of the decision review process is to assure complete, accurate, consistent and uniform decisions and the furtherance of public safety.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2042.) An “abuse of discretion” standard best adheres to this purpose.
   
   “Finally, SB 1446 would create an unfair and illogical disparity between review of parole denials and review of parole grants. Courts reviewing parole denials apply the highly deferential “some evidence” standard, under which a parole denial will generally be upheld if the court finds even a small modicum of evidence supporting the Board’s finding of current dangerousness. Because en banc review is used primarily to review parole grants, while parole denials are generally reviewed through habeas petitions in court, SB 1446 would subject parole grants to a substantially more searching level of review than parole denials. The practical effect is an asymmetrical review system in which denials are rarely overturned, while parole grants face heightened scrutiny and a significantly higher likelihood of reversal. This asymmetry is unfair, lacks principled rationale, and appears to be designed primarily to advance the political objective of more easily reversing controversial parole grants.
   
   “Making Individual Commissioner En Banc Votes Public Would Compromise the Independence of the Board
   
   “The en banc process is intended as a safeguard to ensure parole decisions are legally and factually sound. When the Board or the Governor identify an error or significant new information that could materially impact a parole decision, they refer the case for an “en banc” review, which is a second look by the full Board to determine whether the hearing decision holds up against those identified issues. This process works best when commissioners are given the independence to review parole decisions without fear of political backlash.
   
   “Making individual commissioner votes in en banc review public, particularly in highprofile cases, exposes them to public scrutiny and targeted pressure from elected officials, media, and advocacy groups with interests that extend beyond the public safety risk of the incarcerated person being considered. Public disclosure of individual votes risks placing pressure on commissioners to vote defensively in controversial matters rather than according to the evidence and governing law, shifting focus from the legal and public safety merits of a parole decision to the political consequences of voting to uphold it.
   
   “Courts have long recognized the danger of allowing public opinion to influence parole decisions. In In re Fain, the court emphasized that “‘[i]t is undeniable that public outrage over an imminent parole determination ... has no place in a parole proceeding and is to be given no weight in a parole decision.’” (In re Fain (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 295, 307–308, quoting In re Trantino Parole Application (1982) 89 N.J. 347, 446 A.2d 104, 119.) The court further warned that “[j]ust as the decision-making process of judges must be kept free from fear, so must that of parole board officials” because “[w]ithout this protection, there is the same danger that the decision-maker might not impartially adjudicate the often difficult cases that come before them,” (Id. at p. 309, quoting Sellars v. Procunier (9th Cir.1981) 641 F.2d 1295, 1303, emphasis added in Fain.)
   
   “We have already seen this very danger play out in a recent Senate hearing to confirm Governor appointees to the parole board, where individual parole commissioners were asked to disclose their en banc votes in a specific high-profile case. This exchange clearly conveyed the message that an unpopular vote––even if it has legal integrity and upholds public safety––could cost commissioners their appointments and careers.
   
   “Expanding the SVP Program for People with Indeterminate Sentences is Duplicative, Costly, and Will Not Improve Public Safety
   
   “SB 1446’s expansion of the Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) program to apply to people with indeterminate sentences is unnecessary and counterproductive. The parole board already conducts thorough, structured assessments of risk before granting parole, rendering parallel SVP referrals duplicative. For people with sexual convictions, both the parole suitability and supervision processes additionally require the administration of research-validated, actuarial risk instruments specifically for assessing sexual re-offense risk, including the Static-99R and the STABLE 2007. These redundancies are why the SVP program has never thus far applied to people with indeterminate sentences.
   
   “The SVP program is among the most inefficient and costly public safety systems in the state, as SVP proceedings are notoriously resource-intensive, often involving years of litigation, multiple expert evaluations, and extended detention. The Senate estimates this bill will add at least an additional $14 million to $25 million in already exorbitant annual costs, a resource strain that is unjustifiable without any demonstrated public safety benefit.”
   
3. Related Legislation:
   
   1. AB 2727 (Nguyen) would change the threshold eligibility for the Elderly Parole Program for specified sex crimes. AB 2727 is pending a hearing in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
      
   2. AB 2232 (Patterson) would require BPH to publish an annual report on the advance parole consideration hearing process. AB 2232 is pending a hearing in the Senate Committee on Public Safety.
      
   3. AB 2342 (Hoover) would have authorized the Governor, subject to a constitutional amendment approved by the voters, to reverse or modify a BPH decision to grant parole to an incarcerated person convicted of a violent felony, as specified, if the inmate is serving an indeterminate term for an offense other than murder or the inmate is serving a determinate term and has not completed that term, but only if the board’s decision was the result of Youth Offender Parole or Elderly Parole Program proceedings. The hearing on AB 2342 was canceled at the request of the author.
      
   4. AB 2570 (Lackey) would increase the age at which an incarcerated person becomes eligible for the Elderly Parole Program from 50- to 65-years-old. AB 2570 is pending a hearing in this committee.
      
   5. SB 356 (Jones) would provide that a person sentenced for a one-strike sex offense, as a habitual sex offender, for aggravated sexual assault of a child, or for specified sex acts on a child 10 years of age or younger, is ineligible for elderly parole until the person is 65 years old or older and has served a minimum of 25 years of continuous incarceration on their current sentence. SB 356 is pending hearing in this committee.
      
   6. SB 1278 (Niello) would exclude persons sentenced for a one-strike sex offense, as a habitual sex offender, or for specified sex offenses classified as a “violent” and/or “serious” felony. SB 1278 is pending referral in the Senate Rules Committee.
      
4. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. AB 47 (Nguyen), of the 2025-2026 Legislative Session, would have provided that a person sentenced for a one-strike sex offense or as a habitual sex offender is ineligible for elderly parole until the person is 60 years old or older and has served a minimum of 25 years of continuous incarceration on their current sentence. AB 47 was held in suspense in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
      
   2. SB 286 (Jones), of the 2025-2026 Legislative Session, would have excluded from Elderly Parole eligibility individuals convicted of murder or specified felony sex offenses, or sentenced as a habitual sex offender or under the One Strike Sex Offense statute. SB 286 was held in suspense in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
      
   3. SB 81 (Skinner), of the 2023-2024 Legislative Session, would have required BPH to notify a parole candidate, upon denial their parole, of their right to petition the court for habeas relief. SB 81 was vetoed by the Governor.
      
   4. SB 445 (Jones), of the 2021-2022 Legislative Session, would have excluded “One Strike” sex offenses from the Elderly Parole Program. SB 445 failed passage in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
      
   5. SB 875 (Skinner), of the 2021-2022 Legislative Session, would have prohibited BPH from considering specified factors when reaching a finding of unsuitability for parole, including, the person’s race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, cultural or religious affiliation, and cognitive, speech, or physical impairment. SB 875 was never heard by Senate Public Safety Committee.
      
   6. AB 3234 (Ting), Chapter 334, Statutes of 2020, lowered the minimum age limitation for the Elderly Parole Program to inmates who are 50 years of age and who have served a minimum of 20 years.
      
   7. SB 411 (Jones), of the 2019-2020 Legislative Session, was nearly identical to SB 445 above. SB 411 did not receive a hearing in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
      
   8. AB 1448 (Weber), Chapter 676, Statutes of 2017, codified the Elderly Parole Program, to be administered by the Board of Parole Hearings.
      
   9. SB 224 (Liu), of the 2015-2016 Legislative Session, was substantially similar to AB 1448 above. SB 224 was ordered to the Inactive File on the Senate Floor.
      

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California District Attorneys Association
Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
Riverside County District Attorney

Opposition

ACLU California Action
A New Way of Life Re-entry Project
California Public Defenders Association
Californians United for a Responsible Budget
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
From Bars to Brilliance: the Healing Collective
Justice2jobs Coalition
LA Defensa
Legal Services for Prisoners With Children
San Francisco Public Defender
Uncommon Law

Analysis Prepared by: Andrew Ironside / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744

1. BPH, The California Parole Hearing Process Handbook (Mar. 8, 2024), p. 46 <https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/bph/wp-content/uploads/sites/161/2025/03/CA-Parole-Hearing-Process-Handbook-For-Publication-03-08-24-2.pdf> [as of June 25, 2026] [internal footnotes omitted]. ↑

2. See BPH, Executive Board Meeting, April 2026 Agenda, pp. 4, 11-12 <https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/bph/wp-content/uploads/sites/161/2026/04/April-2026-Agenda-FINAL.pdf> [as of June 25, 2026]. ↑

3. Felando (2012) California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act and the Dangerous Patient Exception, 40 W. St. U. L.Rev. 73, 76; Note (2014) Examining the Conditions of Confinement for Civil Detainees under California's Sexually Violent Predators Act, 68 Hastings L.J. 1441, 1444-1446. ↑

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 1446

Author: Committee on Public Safety

Amended: 4/27/26

Vote: 21

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 6-0, 4/21/26

AYES: Arreguín, Seyarto, Caballero, Cortese, Pérez, Wiener

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/14/26

AYES: Cervantes, Seyarto, Cabaldon, Dahle, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

SUBJECT: Incarcerated persons: release and parole

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill 1) requires a Board of Parole Hearing (BPH) en banc decision and vote to be a public record; 2) requires the board, when reviewing a parole decision referred by the Governor or board’s chief counsel, to review the record of the hearing unless there is new information that when corrected or considered by the board has a substantial likelihood of resulting in a different decision, defer to the hearing panel’s factual findings and credibility determinations, and decide if the hearing panel’s decision is supported by substantial evidence; 3) requires the executive officer of BPH to refer a determinately sentenced individual for evaluation if the person may be a sexually violent predator (SVP); and 4) authorizes the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) or executive officer of BPH to refer an indeterminately sentenced individual for evaluation if the person may be an SVP.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) to meet with each incarcerated person during the sixth year prior to the person’s minimum eligible parole date (MEPD) for the purposes of reviewing and documenting the person’s activities and conduct pertinent to both parole eligibility. Requires that the BPH provide the incarcerated person with information about the parole hearing process, legal factors relevant to their suitability or unsuitability for parole, and individualized recommendations for the person regarding their work assignments, rehabilitative programs, and institutional behavior during the consultation. (Penal (Pen.) Code, § 3041, subd. (a)(1).)
2. Provides that one year prior to the incarcerated person’s MEPD, a panel of two or more commissioners or deputy commissioners must meet with the person and shall normally grant parole. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (a)(2).)
3. Requires, in the event of a tie vote, the matter to be referred for an en banc review of the record that was before the panel that rendered the tie vote. Requires the board to vote to either grant or deny parole and render a statement of decision upon en banc review. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (a)(3).)
4. Requires that an incarcerated person be released upon a grant of parole, subject to all applicable review periods. Prohibits the release of an incarcerated person who has not reached their MEPD unless the person is eligible for earlier release pursuant to their youth offender parole eligibility date or elderly parole eligible date. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (a)(4).)
5. Requires the panel or board, sitting en banc, to grant parole to an incarcerated person unless it determines that the gravity of the current convicted offense or offenses, or the timing and gravity of current or past convicted offense or offenses, is such that consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration for this individual. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (b)(1).)
6. Requires that any decision of the parole panel finding an incarcerated individual suitable for parole becomes final within 120 days of the date of the hearing. Authorizes the board to review the panel’s decision during that period. Requires the panel’s decision to become final pursuant unless the board finds that the panel made an error of law, or that the panel’s decision was based on an error of fact, or that new information should be presented to the board, any of which when corrected or considered by the board has a substantial likelihood of resulting in a substantially different decision upon a rehearing. Requires the board to consult with the commissioners who conducted the parole consideration hearing in making this determination. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (b)(2).)
7. Prohibits a decision of a panel from being disapproved and referred for rehearing except by a majority vote of the board, sitting en banc, following a public meeting. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (b)(3).)
8. Provides that an en banc review by the board means a review conducted by a majority of commissioners holding office on the date the matter is heard by the board. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (e).)
9. Requires that an en banc review be conducted in compliance with the following:
10. The commissioners conducting the review must consider the entire record of the hearing that resulted in the tie vote.
11. The review must be limited to the record of the hearing. Requires the record to consist of the transcript or audiotape of the hearing, written or electronically recorded statements actually considered by the panel that produced the tie vote, and any other material actually considered by the panel. Prohibits new evidence or comments from being considered in the en banc proceeding.
12. The board must separately state reasons for its decision to grant or deny parole.
13. A commissioner who was involved in the tie vote must be recused from consideration of the matter in the en banc review. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (e).)
14. Authorizes the Governor, any time before an incarcerated person’s release, to request review of a decision by a parole authority concerning the grant or denial of parole to any inmate in a state prison. Requires the Governor to state the reason or reasons for the request, and whether the request is based on a public safety concern, a concern that the gravity of current or past convicted offenses may have been given inadequate consideration, or on other factors. (Pen. Code, § 3041.1, subd. (a).
15. Requires the request, if one has been made, to be reviewed by a majority of commissioners specifically appointed to hear adult parole matters and who are holding office at the time. Requires, in case of a review, a vote in favor of parole by a majority of the commissioners reviewing the request to be required to grant parole to any incarcerated person. (Pen. Code, § 3041.1, subd. (b).)
16. Provides for the civil commitment for psychiatric and psychological treatment of an individual incarcerated in state prison found to be a sexually violent predator (SVP) after the person has served their prison commitment. (Welfare (Welf.) & Institutions (Inst.) Code, § 6600, et seq.)
17. Defines a “sexually violent predator” as “a person who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense against one or more victims and who has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes the person a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that he or she will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600, subd. (a)(1).)
18. Requires the Secretary of CDCR, when they have determined that an individual who is in custody (who is either serving a determinate prison sentence or whose parole has been revoked, and who is not in custody for the commission of a new offense committed while the individual was serving an indeterminate term in a state hospital as an SVP) may be an SVP, to refer the person for evaluation at least six months prior to that individual’s scheduled release date for release from prison. Allows the referral to be made less than six months prior to the person’s scheduled release date if the person was received by CDCR with less than nine months of their sentence to serve, or if the person’s release date is modified by judicial or administrative action. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6601, subd. (a)(1).)
19. Permits a person committed as an SVP to be held for an indeterminate term upon commitment. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 6604, 6604.1.)

This bill:

1. Requires the panel’s decision to become final unless the board finds that the panel made an error of law, or that the panel’s decision was based on an error of fact, or that new information should be presented to the board, any of which when corrected or considered by the board has a substantial likelihood of resulting in a different decision upon a rehearing.
2. Requires an en banc decision to grant or deny parole resulting from a tie vote of the granting panel and the vote of the commissioners to be a public record. 
3. Requires the board, when reviewing a parole decision referred en banc by the Governor or by chief counsel, to do all of the following: 
4. Review the record of the hearing unless there is new information that when corrected or considered by the board has a substantial likelihood of resulting in a different decision.
5. Defer to the hearing panel’s factual findings and credibility determinations.
6. Decide if the hearing panel’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.
7. Vote to do any of the following:
   1. Affirm the proposed decision.
   2. Order a new hearing.
   3. Rescind the proposed decision.
   4. Set the parole decision for a rescission hearing based on new information.
8. Render a public statement of decision that includes the vote of the commissioners.
9. Requires the executive officer of BPH to refer determinately sentenced individuals for evaluation if the person may be an SVP.
10. Authorizes the Secretary of CDCR or executive officer of BPH to refer indeterminately sentenced individuals for evaluation if the person may be an SVP.

Background

Parole Suitability Generally. Incarcerated individuals who are indeterminately sentenced must be granted parole by BPH in order to be released from prison. Existing law provides that the parole board “shall grant parole to an inmate unless it determines that the gravity of the current convicted offense or offenses, or the timing and gravity of current or past convicted offense or offenses, is such that consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration for this individual.” (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (b).) The fundamental consideration when making a determination about an individual’s suitability for parole is whether the individual currently poses an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released from prison. (In re Shaputis (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1241.) The decision whether to grant parole is an inherently subjective determination. (In re Rosenkrantz (2002) 29 Cal.4th 616, 655.)

In deciding whether to grant parole, BPH must consider all relevant and reliable information available. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2281, subd. (b).) Factors BPH must consider include the nature of the commitment offense, including the circumstances of the person’s social history; past and present mental state; past criminal history, including involvement in other criminal misconduct which is reliably documented; the base and other commitment offenses, including behavior before, during and after the crime; past and present attitude toward the crime; any conditions of treatment or control, including the use of special conditions under which the individual may safely be released to the community; and any other information which bears on the individual’s suitability for release. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, §§ 2281, subd. (b).) The regulations further state that “[c]ircumstances which taken alone may not firmly establish unsuitability for parole may contribute to a pattern which results in a finding of unsuitability.” (Ibid.)

En Banc Review of a BPH Decision. Cases are referred for en banc review when a parole suitability hearing ends with a tie vote regarding whether to grant the person parole (occurs when there is a two-person hearing panel), when the Chief Counsel of BPH refers the case, and when the Governor requests review of a parole decision. (Pen. Code, §§ 3041, subds. (a), (b), (e); 3041.1.) Under Penal Code section 3041, subdivision (a)(5), a member of the hearing panel may also refer a case for en banc review.

The Board meets monthly over a few days at its headquarters in Sacramento to manage the Board’s business, including reviewing cases that are referred for en banc review. BPH’s Parole Hearing Process Handbook describes the monthly executive meetings as follows:

The Board holds an executive board meeting each month, which is open to the public. The meetings are conducted over two or more days. Members of the public may attend in person, by video, or by phone, as indicated on the meeting agenda. The meeting agenda, including all the decisions or “cases” that will be considered at the meeting, is posted on the Board’s website at least 10 calendar days before the date of the meeting. For all cases listed on the agenda, the Board notifies the incarcerated person, their attorney, the prosecutor, and any registered victims and victims’ family members. At the monthly executive board meeting, panels of commissioners hear public comment on the cases. Comments may be submitted in writing to the Board before the meeting. Those who want to speak during the meeting may attend the meeting and provide their comments. Comments are generally limited to two minutes per speaker. Once public comments have been received, the Board goes into closed session to deliberate and vote on each case. (BPH, The California Parole Hearing Process Handbook (Mar. 8, 2024), p. 46 <https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/bph/wp-content/uploads/sites/161/2025/03/CA-Parole-Hearing-Process-Handbook-For-Publication-03-08-24-2.pdf .) (Internal footnotes omitted.)

The Board consists of 21 parole commissioners. (Government Code § 12838.4.) Penal Code section 3041, subdivision (e), provides that an en banc review by the board means “a review conducted by a majority of commissioners holding office on the date the matter is heard by the board.” Section 3041 requires an en banc review to comply with the following:

• The commissioners conducting the review must consider the entire record of the hearing that resulted in the tie vote.
• The review must be limited to the record of the hearing. The record must consist of the transcript or audiotape of the hearing, written or electronically recorded statements actually considered by the panel that produced the tie vote, and any other material actually considered by the panel. New evidence or comments is prohibited from being considered in the en banc proceeding.
• The board must separately state reasons for its decision to grant or deny parole.
• A commissioner who was involved in the tie vote must be recused from consideration of the matter in the en banc review.

SVPs. The Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) establishes an extended civil commitment scheme for sex offenders who are about to be released from prison but are referred to the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) for treatment in a state hospital because they have suffered from a mental illness which causes them to be a danger to the safety of others. The initial screening is conducted by CDCR and BPH. (Welf. & Inst. Code § 6601, subd. (b).) If a determination is made that the person is likely a sexually violent predator, CDCR is required to refer to the person to DSH for a full evaluation. (Ibid.) The current statutory scheme only applies to determinately sentenced individuals.

This bill requires a BPH en banc decision and vote to be a public record. It also requires the board, when reviewing a parole decision referred by the Governor or board’s chief counsel, to review the record of the hearing unless there is new information that when corrected or considered by the board has a substantial likelihood of resulting in a different decision, defer to the hearing panel’s factual findings and credibility determinations, and decide if the hearing panel’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. Finally, this bill requires the executive officer of BPH to refer a determinately sentenced individual for evaluation if the person may be an SVP and authorizes the Secretary of CDCR or executive officer of BPH to refer an indeterminately sentenced individual for evaluation if the person may be an SVP.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

Major costs, potentially tens of millions of dollars, annually for SVP evaluations (General Fund). The Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has similar referral authority as provided to the BPH executive officer.

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/14/26)

California District Attorneys Association

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/14/26)

California Public Defenders Association

Californians United for a Responsible Budget

Ella Baker Center for Human Rights

Justice2Jobs Coalition

La Defensa

San Francisco Public Defender

UnCommon Law

Prepared by: Stephanie Jordan / PUB. S. /

5/14/26 16:58:05

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Sabrina Cervantes, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

SB 1446 (Committee on Public Safety) - Incarcerated persons: release and parole

Bill Summary:

SB 1446, Senate Committee on Public Safety, relating to incarcerated persons, release and parole, would do the following:

1. Require the decisions and the vote of each Board of Parole Hearing (BPH) commissioner for an en banc review to be a public record.
2. Provide that the standard of review that generally applies to an en banc review does not apply for cases referred by the Governor.
3. Authorize the executive officer of the BPH to refer sentenced individuals for evaluation if the executive officer determines that the person may be a sexually violent predator (SVP).

Fiscal Impact:

Major costs, potentially tens of millions of dollars, annually for SVP evaluations (General Fund). The Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has similar referral authority as provided to the BPH executive officer.

Background:

Incarcerated individuals who are indeterminately sentenced must be granted parole by the BPH in order to be released from prison. The Penal Code provides that the parole board “shall grant parole to an inmate unless it determines that the gravity of the current convicted offense or offenses, or the timing and gravity of current or past convicted offense or offenses, is such that consideration of the public safety requires a lengthier period of incarceration for this individual.” The fundamental consideration when deciding about an individual’s suitability for parole is whether the individual currently poses an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released from prison. The decision whether to grant parole is an inherently subjective determination.

Proposed Law:

This bill would allow for referral of individuals with indeterminate sentences to the Department of State Hospitals for an SVP evaluation before the parole hearing and parole decision occurs. Assuming BPH will refer these incarcerated persons to DSH for SVP evaluation before granting parole at the same rate they do for incarcerated persons who have already been granted parole, DSH estimates it would need to evaluate ~250 additional individuals referred each year. To do so, DSH would require ten SVP evaluators, one Senior Psychologist Supervisor, and two Analyst II positions, at a cost of $3.89M General Fund. Further, if the two initial evaluators disagree on whether the individual meets SVP criteria, two independent evaluators must complete another evaluation. Based on the current rate of difference of opinions, ten percent, DSH would need to fund 50 additional independent evaluations (25 cases of differing opinion, requiring two additional evaluators per case) at a cost of $250,000 annually. In total, this would result in DSH costs of approximately $4.13M annually.

Additionally, if DSH assumes 10 percent to 20 percent of the 250 additional SVP evaluations result in positive SVP determinations, DSH SVP commitments would increase by 25 to 50 patients annually. Since SVP patients’ length of stay is about 12 years, this would significantly impact DSH bed space. As of March 2026, DSH had a total population of 954 SVP patients. Based on FY 2024-25 expenditures, the average cost of inpatient treatment per day at DSH is $1,121; thus, the additional cost to treat these additional SVP patients is estimated at approximately $10.23M to $20.46M annually.

All available units at DSH-Coalinga are activated and serving SVP patients, incarcerated persons from CDCR, and Offender with Mental Health Disorder (OMD) patients. Depending upon the actual number of SVP patients referred to DSH as a result of this bill, DSH may need to relocate OMD patients to other DSH facilities, which may impact overall bed availability in the DSH system for other patient types. To the extent DSH will need to contract for additional bed capacity to meet these needs, there are additional unknown costs.

Related Legislation:

SB 81 (Skinner), 2023 would require the BPH to notify a parole candidate of their right to appeal a parole denial and authorize BPH to appoint counsel to assist the parole candidate with filing a habeas petition challenging a parole denial upon the parole candidate’s request. The bill would establish that a parole candidate who has been denied parole after reaching their minimum eligible parole date, youth parole eligible date, or elderly parole eligible date has made a prima facie case for habeas relief; and changes the court’s standard of review for parole denials from “some evidence” to “preponderance of the evidence.” SB 81 was vetoed by the Governor, with the following message:

This bill would establish that a parole candidate who has been denied parole by the Board of Parole Hearings (Board) after reaching their minimum parole- eligible date, youth parole-eligible date, or elderly parole-eligible date has made a prima facie case for habeas relief. This bill, additionally, would modify the judicial standard of review for a parole denial by the Board to require the parole denial to be overturned unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the person presents a current, unreasonable risk of danger to others. Finally, this bill would require the Board to notify parole candidates the Board finds unsuitable for parole of their right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

I am concerned that the bill introduces legal inconsistencies that will have unintended consequences and be detrimental to California's process for assessing suitability for discretionary release on parole.

The current process strikes a delicate balance and has significantly improved parole hearings in recent years, resulting in a one percent recidivism rate among parolees. The changes the bill prescribes will have unpredictable impacts and will result in decades of litigation and uncertainty for victims, families, and those going through the parole process.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Jesse Arreguín, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: SB 1446 Hearing Date: April 21, 2026

Subject: Incarcerated persons: release and parole

HISTORY

Source: Author

Prior Legislation: SB 81 (Skinner), vetoed, 2023

Support: Unknown

Opposition: California Public Defenders Association; Justice2Jobs Coalition; La Defensa; UnCommon Law

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to require the decision and the vote of each Board of Parole Hearing (BPH) commissioner for an en banc review to be a public record; provide that the standard of review that generally applies for en banc review does not apply for cases referred by the Governor; and requires the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to refer indeterminately sentenced individuals for evaluation if the Secretary determines that the person may be a sexually violent predator (SVP).

Existing law requires the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) to meet with each incarcerated person during the sixth year prior to the person’s minimum eligible parole date (MEPD) for the purposes of reviewing and documenting the person’s activities and conduct pertinent to both parole eligibility. Requires that the BPH provide the incarcerated person with information about the parole hearing process, legal factors relevant to their suitability or unsuitability for parole, and individualized recommendations for the person regarding their work assignments, rehabilitative programs, and institutional behavior during the consultation. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (a)(1).)

Existing law provides that one year prior to the incarcerated person’s MEPD, a panel of two or more commissioners or deputy commissioners must meet with the person and shall normally grant parole. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (a)(2).)

Existing law requires, in the event of a tie vote, the matter to be referred for an en banc review of the record that was before the panel that rendered the tie vote. Requires the board to vote to either grant or deny parole and render a statement of decision upon en banc review. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (a)(3).)

Existing law requires that an incarcerated person be released upon a grant of parole, subject to all applicable review periods. Prohibits the release of an incarcerated person who has not reached their MEPD unless the person is eligible for earlier release pursuant to their youth offender parole eligibility date or elderly parole eligible date. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (a)(4).)

Existing law requires the panel or board, sitting en banc, to grant parole to an incarcerated person unless it determines that the gravity of the current convicted offense or offenses, or the timing and gravity of current or past convicted offense or offenses, is such that consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration for this individual. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (b)(1).)

Existing law requires that any decision of the parole panel finding an incarcerated individual suitable for parole becomes final within 120 days of the date of the hearing. Authorizes the board to review the panel’s decision during that period. Requires the panel’s decision to become final pursuant unless the board finds that the panel made an error of law, or that the panel’s decision was based on an error of fact, or that new information should be presented to the board, any of which when corrected or considered by the board has a substantial likelihood of resulting in a substantially different decision upon a rehearing. Requires the board to consult with the commissioners who conducted the parole consideration hearing in making this determination. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (b)(2).)

Existing law prohibits a decision of a panel from being disapproved and referred for rehearing except by a majority vote of the board, sitting en banc, following a public meeting. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (b)(3).)

Existing law provides that an en banc review by the board means a review conducted by a majority of commissioners holding office on the date the matter is heard by the board. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (e).)

Existing law requires that an en banc review be conducted in compliance with the following:

• The commissioners conducting the review must consider the entire record of the hearing that resulted in the tie vote.
• The review must be limited to the record of the hearing. Requires the record to consist of the transcript or audiotape of the hearing, written or electronically recorded statements actually considered by the panel that produced the tie vote, and any other material actually considered by the panel. Prohibits new evidence or comments from being considered in the en banc proceeding.
• The board must separately state reasons for its decision to grant or deny parole.
• A commissioner who was involved in the tie vote must be recused from consideration of the matter in the en banc review.

(Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (e).)

Existing law authorizes the Governor, any time before an incarcerated person’s release, to request review of a decision by a parole authority concerning the grant or denial of parole to any inmate in a state prison. Requires the Governor to state the reason or reasons for the request, and whether the request is based on a public safety concern, a concern that the gravity of current or past convicted offenses may have been given inadequate consideration, or on other factors. (Pen. Code, § 3041.1, subd. (a).)

Existing law requires the request, if one has been made, to be reviewed by a majority of commissioners specifically appointed to hear adult parole matters and who are holding office at the time. Requires, in case of a review, a vote in favor of parole by a majority of the commissioners reviewing the request to be required to grant parole to any incarcerated person. (Pen. Code, § 3041.1, subd. (b).)

Existing law provides for the civil commitment for psychiatric and psychological treatment of an individual incarcerated in state prison found to be a sexually violent predator (SVP) after the person has served his or her prison commitment. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600, et seq.)

Existing law defines a “sexually violent predator” as “a person who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense against one or more victims and who has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes the person a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that he or she will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600, subd. (a)(1).)

Existing law requires the Secretary of CDCR, when they have determined that an individual who is in custody (who is either serving a determinate prison sentence or whose parole has been revoked, and who is not in custody for the commission of a new offense committed while the individual was serving an indeterminate term in a state hospital as an SVP) may be an SVP, to refer the person for evaluation at least six months prior to that individual’s scheduled release date for release from prison. Allows the referral to be made less than six months prior to the person’s scheduled release date if the person was received by CDCR with less than nine months of their sentence to serve, or if the person’s release date is modified by judicial or administrative action. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6601, subd. (a)(1).)

Existing law permits a person committed as an SVP to be held for an indeterminate term upon commitment. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 6604 & 6604.1.)

Existing law requires that a person found to have been an SVP and committed to the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) have a current examination on their mental condition made at least yearly. Requires the report to include consideration of whether the committed person currently meets the definition of an SVP and whether conditional release to a less restrictive alternative or an unconditional discharge is in the best interest of the person and conditions can be imposed that would adequately protect the community. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6604.9, subds. (a) & (b).)

Existing law outlines a process for the conditional release to a less restrictive alternative or for an unconditional discharge, as specified. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 6604.9, 6607, 6608, 6608.5, 6608.6, 6609.1; Pen. Code, § 1605, subd. (a).)

This bill requires the decision and the vote of each commissioner for an en banc review to be a public record. 

This bill provides that, for en banc review referred by the Governor, the standard of review that generally applies for en banc review does not apply.

This bill requires the Secretary to refer indeterminately sentenced individuals for evaluation if they determine that the person may be an SVP.

COMMENTS

1. Parole Suitability

Incarcerated individuals who are indeterminately sentenced must be granted parole by the BPH in order to be released from prison. The Penal Code provides that the parole board “shall grant parole to an inmate unless it determines that the gravity of the current convicted offense or offenses, or the timing and gravity of current or past convicted offense or offenses, is such that consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration for this individual.” (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (b).) The fundamental consideration when making a determination about an individual’s suitability for parole is whether the individual currently

poses an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released from prison. (In re Shaputis (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1241.) The decision whether to grant parole is an inherently subjective determination. (In re Rosenkrantz (2002) 29 Cal.4th 616, 655.)

In deciding whether to grant parole, the BPH must consider all relevant and reliable information available. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2281, subd. (b).) Factors the BPH must consider include the nature of the commitment offense, including the circumstances of the person’s social history; past and present mental state; past criminal history, including involvement in other criminal misconduct which is reliably documented; the base and other commitment offenses, including behavior before, during and after the crime; past and present attitude toward the crime; any conditions of treatment or control, including the use of special conditions under which the individual may safely be released to the community; and any other information which bears on the individual’s suitability for release. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, §§ 2281, subd. (b).) The regulations further state that “[c]ircumstances which taken alone may not firmly establish unsuitability for parole may contribute to a pattern which results in a finding of unsuitability.” (Ibid.)

Although the parole board is required to consider the circumstances of the offense, the California Supreme Court has held that the parole board may not rely solely on the commitment offense when deciding to grant parole unless the circumstances of the offense “continue to be predictive of current dangerousness.” (In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181, 1221.) The parole board is prohibited from requiring an admission of guilt to any crime for which an incarcerated person was committed to CDCR when considering whether to grant an inmate parole. (Pen. Code, § 5011, subd. (b).) However, “an implausible denial of guilt may support a finding of current dangerousness, without in any sense requiring the inmate to admit guilt as a condition of parole….it is not the failure to admit guilt that reflects a lack of insight, but the fact that the denial is factually unsupported or otherwise lacking in credibility.” (In re Shaputis (2011) 53 Cal.4th 192, 216.) Although the term “insight” is not explicitly included in the regulations, the regulations “direct the Board to consider the inmate’s ‘past and present attitude toward the crime’ and ‘the presence of remorse,’ expressly including indications that the inmate ‘understands the nature and magnitude of the offense’.… fit[ting] comfortably within the descriptive category of ‘insight.’” (Id. at 218 (citations omitted).)

Additional guidance for making parole suitability determinations is provided in the regulations which list circumstances tending to show suitability and those tending to show unsuitability. The following circumstances tend to show unsuitability for release:

• The person committed the offense in an especially heinous, atrocious or cruel manner. The factors to be considered include:
  • Multiple victims were attacked, injured or killed in the same or separate incidents.
  • The offense was carried out in a dispassionate and calculated manner, such as an execution-style murder.
  • The victim was abused, defiled or mutilated during or after the offense.
  • The offense was carried out in a manner which demonstrates an exceptionally callous disregard for human suffering.
  • The motive for the crime is inexplicable or very trivial in relation to the offense.
• The person on previous occasions inflicted or attempted to inflict serious injury on a victim, particularly if the incarcerated person demonstrated serious assaultive behavior at an early age.
• The person has a history of unstable or tumultuous relationships with others.
• The person has previously sexually assaulted another in a manner calculated to inflict unusual pain or fear upon the victim.
• The person has a lengthy history of severe mental problems related to the offense.
• The person has engaged in serious misconduct in prison or jail. (Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 15, § 2281, subd. (c).)

The following are circumstances tending to show suitability:

• The person does not have a record of assaulting others as a juvenile or committing crimes with a potential of personal harm to victims.
• The person has experienced reasonably stable relationships with others.
• The person performed acts which tend to indicate the presence of remorse, such as attempting to repair the damage, seeking help for or relieving suffering of the victim, or indicating that he understands the nature and magnitude of the offense.
• The person committed his or her crime as the result of significant stress in his or her life, especially if the stress has built over a long period of time.
• At the time of the commission of the crime, the person suffered from Battered Woman Syndrome, as defined, and it appears the criminal behavior was the result of that victimization.
• The person lacks any significant history of violent crime.
• The person’s present age reduces the probability of recidivism.
• The person has made realistic plans for release or has developed marketable skills that can be put to use upon release.
• Institutional activities indicate an enhanced ability to function within the law upon release. (Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 15, § 2281, subd. (d).)

The circumstances which tend to show suitability and unsuitability for parole are set forth as general guidelines, and the importance attached to any circumstance or combination of circumstances in a particular case is left to the judgment of the panel. (Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 15, § 2281, subds. (c) & (d).)

1. En Banc Review of a BPH Decision

Cases are referred for en banc review when a parole suitability hearing ends with a tie vote regarding whether to grant the person parole (occurs when there is a two-person hearing panel), when the Chief Counsel of BPH refers the case, and when the Governor requests review of a parole decision. (Pen. Code, §§ 3041, subds. (a), (b), (e); 3041.1.) Under Penal Code section 3041, subdivision (a)(5), a member of the hearing panel may also refer a case for en banc review.

The Board meets monthly over a few days at its headquarters in Sacramento to manage the Board’s business, including reviewing cases that are referred for en banc review. BPH’s Parole Hearing Process Handbook describes the monthly executive meetings as follows:

The Board holds an executive board meeting each month, which is open to the public. The meetings are conducted over two or more days. Members of the public may attend in person, by video, or by phone, as indicated on the meeting agenda. The meeting agenda, including all the decisions or “cases” that will be considered at the meeting, is posted on the Board’s website at least 10 calendar days before the date of the meeting. For all cases listed on the agenda, the Board notifies the incarcerated person, their attorney, the prosecutor, and any registered victims and victims’ family members. At the monthly executive board meeting, panels of commissioners hear public comment on the cases. Comments may be submitted in writing to the Board before the meeting. Those who want to speak during the meeting may attend the meeting and provide their comments. Comments are generally limited to two minutes per speaker. Once public comments have been received, the Board goes into closed session to deliberate and vote on each case. (BPH, The California Parole Hearing Process Handbook (Mar. 8, 2024), p. 46 <https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/bph/wp-content/uploads/sites/161/2025/03/CA-Parole-Hearing-Process-Handbook-For-Publication-03-08-24-2.pdf>.) (Internal footnotes omitted.)

The Board consists of 21 parole commissioners. (Gov. Code, § 12838.4.) Penal Code section 3041, subdivision (e), provides that an en banc review by the board means “a review conducted by a majority of commissioners holding office on the date the matter is heard by the board.” Section 3041 requires an en banc review to comply with the following:

• The commissioners conducting the review must consider the entire record of the hearing that resulted in the tie vote.
• The review must be limited to the record of the hearing. The record must consist of the transcript or audiotape of the hearing, written or electronically recorded statements actually considered by the panel that produced the tie vote, and any other material actually considered by the panel. New evidence or comments is prohibited from being considered in the en banc proceeding.
• The board must separately state reasons for its decision to grant or deny parole.
• A commissioner who was involved in the tie vote must be recused from consideration of the matter in the en banc review.

The agenda for the monthly executive meeting typically divides agenda items to be voted on between two groups of commissioners with each group consisting of a majority of commissioners (i.e., more than half of the total number of commissioners but fewer than the entire board). (See BPH, Executive Board Meeting, April 2026 Agenda, pp. 4, 11-12 <https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/bph/wp-content/uploads/sites/161/2026/04/April-2026-Agenda-FINAL.pdf>.)

1. SVP Background

The Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) establishes an extended civil commitment scheme for sex offenders who are about to be released from prison but are referred to DSH for treatment in a state hospital because they have suffered from a mental illness which causes them to be a danger to the safety of others. The initial screening is conducted by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the Board of Parole Hearings. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6601, subd. (b).) If a determination is made that the person is likely a sexually violent predator, CDCR is required to refer to the person to DSH for a full evaluation. (Ibid.)

Under existing law, a person may be deemed an SVP if: the person has been convicted of specified sex offenses against one or more victims; the person has been diagnosed with a mental disorder that makes the person a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that the person will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior; and, two licensed psychiatrists or psychologists concur in the diagnosis. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 6600, subd. (a), 6601, subd. (d).)

If DSH finds that the person meets the criteria to be considered an SVP, the case is referred to the county’s designated counsel who may file a petition for civil commitment. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6601, subd. (i).)

Once a petition has been filed, a judge holds a probable cause hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6602.) If probable cause is found, the case proceeds to a trial at which the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person meets the statutory criteria to be considered an SVP. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6604.) If the prosecutor meets this burden, the person can be civilly committed to a DSH facility for treatment.

DSH must conduct an examination of an SVP’s mental condition at least annually and submit an annual report to the court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6604.9, subd. (a).) This annual review is prepared by a professionally qualified person. (Ibid.) In addition, DSH has an obligation to seek judicial review any time it believes a person committed as an SVP no longer meets the criteria. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6607.)

The SVPA was substantially amended by Proposition 83 (“Jessica’s Law”) which became operative on November 7, 2006. An SVP commitment, as originally enacted, was for two years and subject to possible extension. Under Jessica’s Law, a person committed as an SVP may be held for an indeterminate term upon commitment or until it is shown that the defendant no longer poses a danger to others. (See People v. McKee (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1172, 1185-87.) Jessica’s Law also amended the SVPA to make it more difficult for SVPs to petition for less restrictive alternatives to commitment. These changes have survived due process, ex post facto, and equal protection challenges. (See Id. at p. 1193 (finding no due process violation because the SVPA has appropriate constitutional protections in place and the committed person “may not be held in civil commitment when he or she no longer meets the requisites of such commitment” (i.e., the person has the opportunity for release); People v. McKee (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1325; People v. Superior Court (Karsai) (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 774.) Due to the significant deprivation of a person’s liberty while SVP proceedings are conducted, and potentially indefinitely after being committed as an SVP, the California Supreme Court recently held that all trial courts in the state are required to advise criminal defendants prior to pleading guilty or nolo contendere to an offense enumerated in the SVPA, or in cases where the court is aware that the defendant has a prior conviction for such an offense, of potential repercussions related to the SVPA. (In re Tellez (2024) 17 Cal.5th 77, 92.)

1. Release of SVPs

Two types of release exist for SVPs—unconditional discharge and conditional release. Both types of release require a petition for release. The petition can be filed with or without the concurrence of the Director of State Hospitals, and the Director’s concurrence or lack thereof determines which is process used.

An SVP can, with the concurrence of the Director of State Hospitals, petition for unconditional discharge if the patient “no longer meets the definition of a sexually violent predator,” or for conditional release. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6604.9, subd. (d).) When the petition is filed for unconditional discharge (i.e., with the concurrence of the DSH), the court must order a show cause hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6604.9, subd. (f).) If the court at the show cause hearing determines that probable cause exists to believe that the committed person’s diagnosed mental disorder has so changed that he or she is not a danger to the health and safety of others and is not likely to engage in sexually violent criminal behavior if discharged, then the court must hold a hearing on the issue. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6605, subd. (a)(2).) At the hearing, the committed person has a right to a jury trial and is entitled to relief unless the prosecuting attorney proves “beyond a reasonable doubt that the committed person’s diagnosed mental disorder remains such that he or she is a danger to the health and safety of others and is likely to engage in sexually violent behavior if discharged.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6605, subd. (a)(3).)

A person committed as an SVP may also petition the court for conditional release, with or without the recommendation or concurrence of the Director of State Hospitals. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608, subd. (a).) A hearing on the petition cannot be held until the SVP has been under commitment for at least one year. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608, subd. (f).) Upon receipt of a first or subsequent petition from a committed person without the concurrence of the Director, the court is required whenever possible to review the petition and determine if it is based upon frivolous grounds and, if so, to deny the petition without a hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608, subd. (a).) If the petition is not found to be frivolous, the court is required to hold a hearing. (People v. Smith (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 947.)

Once the court sets the hearing on the petition, the petitioner is entitled to both the assistance of counsel and the appointment of experts. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608, subds. (c), (g); People v. McKee, supra, 47 Cal.4th 1172, 1193.) At the hearing, the person petitioning for release has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608, subd. (i); People v. Rasmuson (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1503.) If the petition is denied, the SVP may not file a subsequent petition until one year from the date of the denial. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608, subd. (j).)

If a person is approved for conditional release, DSH is required to find a suitable housing placement for the person in the community. Existing law requires that the person be placed in the county of domicile prior to the person’s incarceration unless the court finds that extraordinary circumstances require placement outside the county of domicile and the designated county of placement was given prior notice and an opportunity to comment on the proposed placement of

the committed person in the county. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608.5, subd. (a).) DSH is required to convene a housing committee consisting of the committed person’s attorney, the sheriff or the chief of police of the locality for placement, the county counsel, and the district attorney from the county of domicile, and the housing committee is required to provide assistance and consultation in DSH’s process of locating and securing housing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608.5, subd. (d)(1).) DSH must consider a number of factors when locating housing, including statutory residency restrictions, the concerns or proximity to the victim or victim’s next of kin, and the age and profile of the victim or victims of the sexually violent offenses committed by the person subject to placement. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608.5, subds. (e) & (f).) Notably, if no housing placement has been found and the court has ordered the person to conditional release, the person can be released as a transient. (Karsai, supra, at p. 788-89.)

1. Effect of This Bill

This bill has three components. First, it requires the decision and the vote of each BPH commissioner for an en banc review to be a public record. Second, it provides that the standard of review that generally applies for en banc review does not apply to parole decisions referred by the Governor. Finally, this bill requires the Secretary of CDCR to refer indeterminately sentenced individuals for evaluation if the Secretary determines that the person may be an SVP.

1. Argument in Opposition

The California Public Defenders Association writes:

SB 1446 would amend existing law to do two things in response to a highly publicized case in the Sacramento area. Good public policy should entail a thorough examination of perplexing problems including all the evidence and research regarding an issue combined with weighing the community’s need for public safety and the need to spend precious resources wisely.

First SB 1446 would require that when an en banc review is conducted by the board of a decision to parole an individual, each commissioner’s vote and stated reason shall be part of the public record. Second, SB 1446 would require the Executive Officer of the Board of Parole Hearings to make a referral requiring the Department of State Hospitals to evaluate an individual who is serving an indeterminate prison sentence and will come before the parole board withing six months for possible “SVP” commitment. This amendment, which would require SVP evaluations for those serving indeterminant life sentences, would cost the state a tremendous amount of money, and do little to protect public safety. They would also require redundant evaluations that are costly and unnecessary.

Such an assessment is extremely wasteful as these individuals have already undergone, or will undergo, prior to their parole hearing a thorough risk assessment specific to sexual offenders conducted by a qualified Department of Corrections psychologist. There is no reason to subject these individuals to two separate risk assessments by two separate entities. Moreover, parole hearings may be waived or continued within 45 days of the set for the hearing. Under this bill a person who may not even appear before the parole board and thus has no chance of release will still be evaluated. Conducting an “SVP” evaluation when there is no chance a person will be released serves no purpose. This bill will cost the state a significant amount of money. It is wasteful and unnecessary and will do nothing to protect the public.

-- END --