Search Articles
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — A group of California petitioners challenged the legal validity of recently changed parole regulations Wednesday, saying the new procedures violate statutes and create undue hardship for the families of crime victims.
The petitioners are family members of murdered victims, victims’ rights and service organizations, such as Crime Victims United of California, Citizens Against Homicide and Victim Advocate Angels, along with the Peace Officers Research Association of California.
The new regulations establish evaluations and hearings for inmates ineligible for parole, allowing recommendations for recall and resentencing to the court and commutation to the governor. A positive recommendation is made if the inmate meets the same criteria used for parole, without considering factors like minimum sentencing, legal sentencing requirements or victims’ interests, the petitioners say.
“The Board of Parole Hearings … has taken it upon itself to expand this recommendation authority into a full-blown system of reviews and hearings paralleling and resembling the system of parole hearings — the system that the people of California voted to curb in Marsy’s Law, Proposition 9 of 2008, due to the prolonged suffering it imposes on crime victims and their families,” the petitioners say in their petition for writ of mandate filed in Sacramento County Superior Court.
The petitioners say the new regulations violate the Administrative Procedure Act and are contrary to crime victims’ rights under Marsy’s Law. Marsy’s Law, named after Marsalee Nicholas, a college student who was stalked and killed in 1983, established expanded legal rights of crime victims that include notification of all legal proceedings and parole decisions and the right to have protection and privacy from the accused, along with the legal standing to enforce their rights in court.
Additionally, the petitioners say, adults convicted of first-degree murder with special circumstances are either given the sentence of life without the possibility of parole, or death.
“The fact that the inmate has already received the lowest legal sentence for the crime is an inescapably relevant factor in whether to recommend resentencing,” the petitioners say. “By compelling a positive recommendation based on assessment of dangerousness alone without considering this fact, the regulations are inconsistent with both the statute being implemented and standards prescribed by other provisions of law, and therefore they are invalid.”
One of the petitioners, Amber Marie Kavanaugh, is the mother of a 6-week-old infant named Alya who was tortured and murdered by her father. Kevin Van Streefkerk pleaded guilty to the crimes and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole in 2024.
“The assurance of finality of this sentence, without the prospect of needing to oppose parole at periodic hearings, was an important part of petitioner Kavanaugh’s ability to begin healing after Alya’s murder,” the petitioners say. “The prospect of parole-like hearings which may lead to a reduced sentence causes her significant emotional distress and anxiety.”
The petitioners ask the court to stop the Board of Parole Hearings from enforcing the new regulations and declaring them invalid and void.
A California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation spokesperson said the board has not received the petition and declined to comment on pending litigation. However, the CDCR spokesperson said, only individuals who have served 25 years of continuous incarceration and do not meet any exclusion criteria may enter the review process under the new regulations.
“What we can say is that these regulations do not release anyone from prison,” the CDCR spokesperson said in an email to Courthouse News. “They establish a transparent process for the Board of Parole Hearings to provide expert public safety assessments to the courts and the governor, who remain the only decision-makers on resentencing or commutation.”
The initial reviews are scheduled to begin July 1, 2027, with hearings starting July 1, 2028.
Attorneys representing the petitioners did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Subscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.
