GPS RESEARCH LIBRARY: Can Georgia give people in prison a liberty interest in parole?
============================================================
Georgia Prisoners' Speak — gps.press
Generated: 2026-10-30 01:27:59 EDT

Research Date: 2026-10-28
Topic: parole; due process; liberty interest; Georgia Constitution; State Board of Pardons and Paroles
JSON: https://gps.press/research-data/can-georgia-give-people-in-prison-a-liberty-interest-in-parole/?format=json

SUMMARY
----------------------------------------
This collection sets out facts from public sources on the subject in its title, drawn from Georgia, federal sources, Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, national and multi-state sources and other sources. Each entry gives a short statement, the exact passage from the source that supports it, and the source's title, web address and the date it was retrieved. Searches of a source that found no match are listed too, with the wordings that were tried. The entries record what each source said when it was retrieved. They aren't a complete account of the subject, and they don't add analysis or conclusions.

LEGAL FACTS (389)
----------------------------------------
- [confirmed] Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles rulemaking authority
  Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 475-3-.01 provides that the Board may adopt and promulgate rules not inconsistent with the law, with authority notes citing Ga. L. 1943, pp. 185, 194 and Ga. L. 1964, pp. 487-489.
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. R. 475-3-.01 - Rule Making Authority | State Regulations | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

- [confirmed] Georgia Constitution allows General Assembly to prohibit parole for certain repeat and consecutive-life offenders
  Ga. Const. art. IV, § II, ¶ II(c) provides that notwithstanding subparagraph (b), the General Assembly, by law, may prohibit the board from granting and may prescribe the terms and conditions for the board's granting a pardon or parole to any person incarcerated for a second or subsequent time for any offense for which such person could have been sentenced to life imprisonment, and any person who has received consecutive life sentences as the result of offenses occurring during the same series of acts.
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Article IV, Georgia Constitution - Ballotpedia

- [reported] Board of Pardons and Paroles expanded from three to five members in 1973
  The State Board of Pardons and Paroles states on its About page that it had only three members until a Constitutional amendment, effective in 1973, allowed expansion to its present size of five members.
  Date: 1973-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: About | State Board of Pardons and Paroles

- [reported] Georgia law does not create a liberty interest in parole (Saleem v. Snow)
  The Court of Appeals of Georgia in Saleem v. Snow (1995) stated, citing Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979), that 'Georgia law does not create a liberty interest in parole.'
  Date: 1995-07-14
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Saleem v. Snow, Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1995-07-14 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Jago v. Van Curen: No liberty interest in Ohio shock parole
  The U.S. Supreme Court summarily reversed the Sixth Circuit on federal habeas, holding that Ohio's rescission, before release, of a granted 'shock parole' without a hearing did not violate due process. Ohio law created no protected liberty interest in parole, and Perry v. Sindermann's 'mutually explicit understandings' doctrine (a property-interest concept) could not create one.
  Date: 1981-11-09
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Jago v. Van Curen, Supreme Court of the United States, 1981-11-09 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] McQuillion: mandatory statutory language creates presumption of parole release and liberty interest
  In McQuillion v. Duncan, the Ninth Circuit stated that Greenholtz and Allen established that a state's statutory scheme, if it uses mandatory language, creates a presumption that parole release will be granted when or unless certain designated findings are made, and thereby gives rise to a constitutional liberty interest.
  Date: 2002-09-25
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Carl D. McQuillion v. William Duncan, Warden Attorney General of the State of California, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, 2002-09-25 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] No federal constitutional right to parole
  The U.S. Supreme Court stated that whatever liberty interest in parole exists is a state interest created by state law, and there is no right under the Federal Constitution to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence; States are under no duty to offer parole to their prisoners.
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: law.cornell.edu: 10 333

- [confirmed] Dumschat holding: commutation power confers no rights beyond right to seek
  The Supreme Court held in Connecticut Board of Pardons v. Dumschat that the power vested in the Connecticut Board of Pardons to commute sentences conferred no rights on respondents beyond the right to seek commutation.
  Date: 1981-06-17
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: Connecticut Board of Pardons v. Dumschat, Supreme Court of the United States, 1981-06-17 (court record via CourtListener); CONNECTICUT BOARD OF PARDONS et al., Petitioners, v. David DUMSCHAT et al. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

- [confirmed] Sandin: misconduct finding too attenuated to invoke Due Process for parole
  Sandin v. Conner held that nothing in Hawaii's code requires the parole board to deny parole in the face of a misconduct record or to grant parole in its absence, and the chance that a misconduct finding will alter the parole balance is too attenuated to invoke the procedural guarantees of the Due Process Clause.
  Date: 1995-06-19
  Tags: legal,parole,policy
  Sources: Sandin v. Conner, Supreme Court of the United States, 1995-06-19 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] O.C.G.A. § 42-9-40(a) parole guidelines system requirement
  O.C.G.A. § 42-9-40(a) requires the State Board of Pardons and Paroles to adopt, implement, and maintain a parole guidelines system for determining parole action, used in determining parole actions on all inmates except those serving life sentences who are statutorily eligible for parole consideration.
  Date: 1980-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 42-9-40 (GPS's copy of the Code)

- [confirmed] Hawaii statute mandates parole for low-risk assessed individuals upon minimum term completion
  Hawaii Revised Statutes § 706-670(1) provides that a person assessed as low risk for reoffending shall be granted parole upon completing the minimum sentence, subject to good cause and enumerated exceptions.
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Chapter 706 (data.capitol.hawaii.gov)

- [confirmed] O.C.G.A. § 42-9-46: early parole consideration requires 10-day written notice to judge, DA, victims
  O.C.G.A. § 42-9-46 authorizes the Board of Pardons and Paroles to consider an inmate for parole before the inmate has served the minimum time specified in § 42-9-45, subject to advance written notice to the sentencing judge, district attorney, and certain victims, and an opportunity to object. The statute requires notice 'at least ten days prior to such early consideration.'
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 42-9-46 (GPS's copy of the Code)

- [confirmed] Michigan parole board departure from guidelines requires written substantial and compelling objective reasons
  Michigan's parole board may depart from the parole guidelines by denying parole to a prisoner with a high probability of parole, or granting parole to a prisoner with a low probability of parole, only for substantial and compelling objective reasons stated in writing (MCL 791.233e(6), as amended by 2018 PA 339).
  Date: 2018-12-12
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Act No. 339, 2018 PA 0339 [1]; MCL - Section 791.233e - Michigan Legislature, MCL [1]

- [confirmed] Lewis v. Griffin: suit against Parole Board requires showing gross abuse of discretion
  In Lewis v. Griffin (1989), the Supreme Court of Georgia stated in a footnote that a prisoner's success in an action against the Parole Board would depend on demonstrating a gross abuse of discretion by the Board in denying the relief sought, citing OCGA § 42-9-42(c),(d).
  Date: 1989-02-23
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Lewis v. Griffin, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1989-02-23 (court record via CourtListener)

- [reported] Michigan Supreme Court: 'may' vests discretion, no required departure from parole guidelines
  In In re Parole of McBrayer, the Michigan Supreme Court held that the Parole Board is not required to depart from the parole guidelines even when substantial and compelling reasons exist, because the use of 'may' vests discretion in the Board.
  Date: 2023-07-24
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: In Re Parole of Richard Allen McBrayer, 2023-07-24 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] 1994 Senate resolution proposed constitutional amendment for mandatory service of sentence
  A Georgia Senate Resolution proposed an amendment to the Georgia Constitution providing that the General Assembly may, by general law approved by two-thirds of its members, require mandatory service of sentence for persons convicted of armed robbery, kidnapping, rape, aggravated child molestation, aggravated sodomy, or aggravated sexual battery; when so provided, the State Board of Pardons and Paroles would have no authority to consider such persons for pardon, parole, or commutation during that portion of the sentence.
  Date: 1994-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal,policy,legislation
  Sources: Ga. L. 1994, p. 2015 (Acts and resolutions of the General Assembly of the state of Georgia 1994 [volume 1])

- [confirmed] U.S. Supreme Court: no constitutional right to parole release
  In Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, the U.S. Supreme Court held that there is no constitutional or inherent right of a convicted person to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence.
  Date: 1979-05-29
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, Supreme Court of the United States, 1979-05-29 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Sultenfuss three-factor test for parole liberty interest
  The Sultenfuss majority adopted a three-factor test for whether a state parole system creates a liberty interest: (1) whether the system places substantive limitations on the discretion of decisionmakers; (2) whether it mandates the outcome if substantive predicates are met; and (3) whether the statutes and regulations contain explicitly mandatory language dictating the procedures and result required.
  Date: 1994-10-05
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Stephen Sultenfuss, Charles McMulling v. Wayne Snow, Jr., James T. Morris, Mobley Howell, Michael... – CourtListener.com

- [confirmed] Sultenfuss v. Snow cited Stephens v. State on sentencing court's inability to impose parole conditions
  The Eleventh Circuit in Sultenfuss v. Snow (1994) explained Stephens v. State, 207 Ga.App. 645, 428 S.E.2d 661, 663 (1993), which held that a sentencing court's attempt to impose conditions on a criminal defendant's parole unconstitutionally infringed on the Board's authority.
  Date: 1994-10-05
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Stephen Sultenfuss, Charles McMulling v. Wayne Snow, Jr., James T. Morris, Mobley Howell, Michael... – CourtListener.com

- [confirmed] Greenholtz: expectancy of release under Nebraska statute entitled to some constitutional protection
  In Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex (1979), the U.S. Supreme Court accepted that the expectancy of release provided in the Nebraska parole statute is entitled to some measure of constitutional protection.
  Date: 1979-05-29
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, Supreme Court of the United States, 1979-05-29 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Board constitutionally vested with parole power; General Assembly sets eligibility
  The State Board of Pardons and Paroles is constitutionally vested with the power to grant parole, though the General Assembly has the ability to determine who is eligible for consideration of parole, citing 1983 Ga. Const., Art. IV, Sec. II, Par. II (a) and (b).
  Date: 1996-01-08
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Vargas v. Morris, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1996-01-08 (court record via CourtListener)

- [reported] Georgia AG opinion 95-4: constitutional amendment ratified prior general laws on life without parole and mandatory service
  The Georgia Attorney General's office stated that the constitutional amendment ratified any general law previously enacted by the General Assembly providing for life without parole or for mandatory service of sentences without suspension, probation, or parole, subject to amendment or repeal by general law. Quoted text: '(b)(4) Any general law previously enacted by the General Assembly providing for life without parole or for mandatory service of sentences without suspension, probation, or parole is hereby ratified and approved but such provisions shall be subject to amendment or repeal by general law.'
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: 95-4 | Office of the Attorney General

- [confirmed] Acoli: presumptive entitlement to release under 1979 parole statute
  The New Jersey Supreme Court's published summary of Acoli v. New Jersey State Parole Board states that under N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.53 (1979), at the time of Acoli's parole hearing he was presumptively entitled to release, and to overcome that presumption the Parole Board had the burden of demonstrating a substantial likelihood that, if released, Acoli would commit another crime; the Board did not meet that burden.
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Sundiata Acoli v. New Jersey State Parole Board (083980) (Statewide) - Published | NJ Courts

- [confirmed] Terry v. Hamrick: Board has executive power over parole terms and conditions
  In Terry v. Hamrick, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that the Board of Pardons and Paroles has executive power regarding the terms and conditions of paroles, citing OCGA §§ 42-9-40, 42-9-44 and Stephens v. State, 207 Ga. App. 645, 647 (2) (428 SE2d 661) (1993).
  Date: 2008-06-30
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Terry v. Hamrick, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2008-06-30 (court record via CourtListener)

- [reported] New Jersey courts more willing to find state-created liberty interests than federal courts
  The New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division in Filgueiras v. Newark Pub. Schools (2012) quoted New Jersey State Parole Bd. v. Byrne, 93 N.J. 192, 208, 460 A.2d 103 (1983), stating: "we have generally been more willing to find State-created interests that invoke the protection of procedural due process than have our federal counterparts."
  Date: 2012-06-18
  Tags: legal,parole,policy
  Sources: Filgueiras v. Newark Pub. Schools, New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division, 2012-06-18 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Sultenfuss v. Snow: Georgia inmate has no liberty interest in parole
  The Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc in Sultenfuss v. Snow, 35 F.3d 1494 (11th Cir. 1994), held that a Georgia inmate has no liberty interest in parole. Jones v. Ray (2001) held that a Georgia prisoner's due process claim was foreclosed by this holding.
  Date: 1994-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Larry Jones v. Walter S. Ray, Chairman, Bobby K. Whitworth, U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, 2001-11-01 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Dotson: parole procedure challenges cognizable under § 1983
  The U.S. Supreme Court held that state prisoners' challenges to Ohio's parole-eligibility and parole-suitability procedures, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, are cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and need not be brought in habeas, because success would not necessarily mean immediate or speedier release.
  Tags: legal,parole,policy
  Sources: WILKINSON, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION, ET AL. v. DOTSON ET AL. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

- [confirmed] Recidivist parole ineligibility statute in force since 1953
  OCGA § 17-10-7(c) and its predecessors have provided since 1953 that persons sentenced as recidivists shall not be eligible for parole until the maximum sentence has been served. The subsection was designated OCGA § 17-10-7(b) prior to the passage of the Sentence Reform Act of 1994.
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Moore v. Ray, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1998-05-18 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Pennsylvania statute disclaims right to parole
  Pennsylvania's parole statute, Section 6139.0 of Title 61, states: 'Nothing under this section shall be interpreted as granting a right to be paroled to any person.'
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Section 6139.0 - Title 61 - PRISONS AND PAROLE

- [confirmed] Stephens v. State: No legal authority for judge-imposed parole condition
  The Court of Appeals of Georgia found no express legal authority for a trial judge to impose a Fourth Amendment waiver as a condition of parole as part of an offender's sentence. The trial court had sentenced the appellant to waive Fourth Amendment rights to search and seizure as a condition of any parole, subjecting him to searches without a warrant or probable cause.
  Date: 1993-03-08
  Tags: legal,parole,policy
  Sources: Stephens v. State, Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1993-03-08 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] OCGA § 42-9-44(a): Board must specify parole conditions in writing and give certified copy to parolee
  OCGA § 42-9-44(a) provides that the Board, upon placing a person on parole, shall specify in writing the terms and conditions thereof, and a certified copy of the conditions shall be given to the parolee. Because only the Board can impose conditions, a parole officer may only instruct a parolee as to what is required to comply with Board-prescribed conditions.
  Date: 2000-05-30
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Hamm v. Ray, 2000-05-30 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Sultenfuss v. Snow: Georgia parole scheme creates liberty interest
  The en banc Eleventh Circuit, applying the three-factor test derived from Greenholtz and Board of Pardons v. Allen (explicitly mandatory language plus specified substantive predicates limiting discretion), held: 'Under [Greenholtz] and [Allen], the Georgia scheme creates a [liberty] [interest] in parole.'
  Date: 1994-10-05
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Stephen Sultenfuss, Charles McMulling v. Wayne Snow, Jr., James T. Morris, Mobley Howell, Michael H. Wing, Bettye O. Hutchings, Michael J. Bowers, 1994-10-05 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Olim v. Wakinekona: procedures do not create substantive rights
  The U.S. Supreme Court in Olim v. Wakinekona (1983) held that a State may choose to require procedures for reasons other than protecting against deprivation of substantive rights, but in making that choice the State does not create an independent substantive right.
  Date: 1983-04-26
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Olim v. Wakinekona, Supreme Court of the United States, 1983-04-26 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Georgia Constitution grants Board authority to pardon innocent persons, issue medical reprieves, and parole persons age 62 or older
  Ga. Const. art. IV, § II, ¶ II(e) provides that notwithstanding any other provisions of that Paragraph, the State Board of Pardons and Paroles shall have the authority to pardon any person convicted of a crime who is subsequently determined to be innocent of said crime, or to issue a medical reprieve to an entirely incapacitated person suffering a progressively debilitating terminal illness, or parole any person who is age 62 or older.
  Tags: parole,legal,medical,policy
  Sources: Article IV, Georgia Constitution - Ballotpedia

- [reported] Sixth Circuit explained Board of Pardons v. Allen in parole liberty-interest analysis
  In Carvin Thomas v. Richard Montgomery (6th Cir., 2025-06-09), the court explained Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369, 377 (1987), noting that in Allen the Court found that Montana's statute created an expectancy of parole release.
  Date: 2025-06-09
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: Carvin Thomas v. Richard Montgomery, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 2025-06-09 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] 1982 Georgia Constitution allowed legislature to restrict parole for recidivists and consecutive life sentences
  The Constitution of Georgia as originally ratified contained, in article IV, section II, paragraph II(c), a clause notwithstanding subparagraph (b) allowing the General Assembly by law to prohibit the Board from granting and to prescribe terms and conditions for granting a pardon or parole to any person incarcerated for a second or subsequent time for an offense for which the person could have been sentenced to life imprisonment, and to any person who has received consecutive life sentences from offenses occurring during the same series of acts.
  Date: 1982-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Constitution of the state of Georgia ratified, November 2, 1982, proclaimed, December 21, 1982 - Digital Library of Georgia

- [reported] Parole discretion vested solely in State Board of Pardons and Paroles (Manley v. State)
  In Manley v. State (2010), the Supreme Court of Georgia held that discretion to grant parole to eligible offenders is vested solely in the State Board of Pardons and Paroles, citing Art. IV, Sec. II, Par. II(a) of the Georgia Constitution of 1983 and OCGA § 42-9-1 et seq., and citing Vargas v. Morris, 266 Ga. 141(2), 465 S.E.2d 275 (1996).
  Date: 2010-04-09
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Manley v. State, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2010-04-09 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Monroe v. Thigpen: Alabama parole statute confers no liberty interest
  In Monroe v. Thigpen, the Eleventh Circuit stated that it had previously determined that the Alabama parole statute (Ala. Code § 15-22-26 (1975)) does not confer a liberty interest in parole protected by the Due Process Clause because the statute provides that parole may be granted at the Board's discretion (citing Thomas v. Sellers, 691 F.2d 487, 488-89 (11th Cir. 1982)). Federal courts should not interfere with the Alabama Board's discretionary decisions absent flagrant or unauthorized action by the Board.
  Date: 1991-06-10
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Carl J. Monroe v. Morris Thigpen, Leland Lambert, U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, 1991-06-10 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] McQuillion: California parole scheme created protected liberty interest in set parole date
  On a § 2254 habeas appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that California's parole scheme created a federally protected liberty interest in the prisoner's previously set parole date, that due process required 'some evidence' to support rescinding it, and that the rescission failed that standard. It reversed the denial of habeas relief.
  Date: 2002-09-25
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Carl D. McQuillion v. William Duncan, Warden Attorney General of the State of California, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, 2002-09-25 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Due process in parole context requires only minimal procedures
  The Court held that in the context of parole, the procedures required by the Due Process Clause are minimal: a prisoner subject to a parole statute similar to California's received adequate process when allowed an opportunity to be heard and provided a statement of reasons why parole was denied, and 'the Constitution does not require more.'
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: law.cornell.edu: 10 333

- [confirmed] Dumschat contrasts Connecticut commutation statute with Greenholtz mandatory parole
  Dumschat states that the Nebraska statutory procedures in Greenholtz expressly mandated that the Nebraska Board of Parole 'shall' order the inmate's release 'unless' it decided that one of four specified reasons for denial was applicable, in contrast to the Connecticut commutation statute which has no definitions, no criteria, and no mandated 'shalls' and so creates no analogous duty or constitutional entitlement.
  Date: 1981-06-17
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: Connecticut Board of Pardons v. Dumschat, Supreme Court of the United States, 1981-06-17 (court record via CourtListener); CONNECTICUT BOARD OF PARDONS et al., Petitioners, v. David DUMSCHAT et al. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

- [confirmed] Sandin origin of atypical and significant hardship test
  The 'atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life' test applied in Wilkinson v. Austin originates in Sandin v. Conner, which framed it as a return to Wolff and Meachum and cited Board of Pardons v. Allen for the point that States may create liberty interests.
  Date: 1995-06-19
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: Sandin v. Conner, Supreme Court of the United States, 1995-06-19 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] O.C.G.A. § 42-9-40(a) factors for parole guidelines
  O.C.G.A. § 42-9-40(a) requires the parole guidelines system to take into consideration the severity of the current offense, the inmate's prior criminal history, the inmate's conduct, and social factors predictive of further criminal behavior and successful adjustment under parole supervision.
  Date: 1980-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 42-9-40 (GPS's copy of the Code)

- [confirmed] Hawaii statute requires validated risk assessment for parole suitability
  Hawaii Revised Statutes § 706-670(1) requires that a validated risk assessment be used to determine the person's risk of re-offense and suitability for community supervision.
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Chapter 706 (data.capitol.hawaii.gov)

- [confirmed] O.C.G.A. § 42-9-53(b)(1): Board information classified as 'confidential state secrets'
  O.C.G.A. § 42-9-53(b)(1) classifies 'All information, both oral and written, received by the members of the board in the performance of their duties under this chapter and all reports, files, records, and information coming into their possession by reason of the performance of their duties under this chapter' as 'confidential state secrets until declassified by the board.'
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 42-9-53 (GPS's copy of the Code)

- [confirmed] Michigan limits substantial and compelling reasons for departure for high-probability prisoners to ongoing behavior pattern
  MCL 791.233e(7) limits substantial and compelling objective reasons for a departure from the parole guidelines for a prisoner with high probability of parole to specified circumstances, including that the prisoner exhibits a pattern of ongoing behavior while incarcerated indicating he or she would be a substantial risk to public safety, including major misconducts or additional criminal convictions.
  Date: 2018-12-12
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Act No. 339, 2018 PA 0339 [1]; MCL - Section 791.233e - Michigan Legislature, MCL [1]

- [confirmed] Justice v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles: mandamus unavailable absent gross abuse of discretion
  In Justice v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles (1975), the Supreme Court of Georgia held that mandamus will not lie against a public officer who has absolute discretion to act or not, unless there is a gross abuse of that discretion (citing Code §§ 64-101, 64-102).
  Date: 1975-06-24
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Justice v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1975-06-24 (court record via CourtListener)

- [reported] Michigan Supreme Court reinstates parole grant; lower courts substituted judgment
  The Michigan Supreme Court held that the lower courts impermissibly substituted their judgment for the Parole Board's by reversing its grant of parole: the Court of Appeals failed to separately consider whether the Board's decision not to depart from the guidelines was a clear abuse of discretion, and it was not; the Board's grant of parole was reinstated.
  Date: 2023-07-24
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: In Re Parole of Richard Allen McBrayer, 2023-07-24 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Resolution amended Article IV, Section II, Paragraph II of Georgia Constitution
  The resolution amended Article IV, Section II, Paragraph II of the Georgia Constitution by striking subparagraphs (b) and (e) in their entirety and inserting new subparagraphs (b) and (e).
  Date: 1994-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal,legislation
  Sources: Ga. L. 1994, p. 2015 (Acts and resolutions of the General Assembly of the state of Georgia 1994 [volume 1])

- [confirmed] Nebraska parole statute's mandatory release language
  The Nebraska statute at issue in Greenholtz provided that whenever the Board of Parole considers the release of a committed offender who is eligible for release on parole, it shall order his release unless it is of the opinion that his release should be deferred because of four designated reasons: substantial risk of nonconformity to parole conditions; release would depreciate the seriousness of the crime or promote disrespect for law; release would have a substantially adverse effect on institutional discipline; or continued correctional treatment would substantially enhance capacity to lead a law-abiding life when released later.
  Date: 1979-05-29
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, Supreme Court of the United States, 1979-05-29 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Sultenfuss reliance on Staton v. Wainwright mandatory-language distinction
  The Sultenfuss majority relied on Staton v. Wainwright, 665 F.2d 686 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982), which found no protectable liberty interest in Florida parole statutes despite mandatory language, because that language dictated what criteria should be considered rather than what result must follow if those criteria were met.
  Date: 1982-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Stephen Sultenfuss, Charles McMulling v. Wayne Snow, Jr., James T. Morris, Mobley Howell, Michael... – CourtListener.com

- [confirmed] Board of Pardons and Paroles constitutionally vested with parole power; General Assembly determines eligibility
  The Supreme Court of Georgia in Daker v. Ray (2002) held that the Board of Pardons and Paroles is constitutionally vested with the power to grant parole, though the General Assembly has the ability to determine who is eligible for consideration of parole.
  Date: 2002-04-29
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Daker v. Ray, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2002-04-29 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Greenholtz: Nebraska parole procedure affords all process due
  The Supreme Court held that the Nebraska parole procedure, which affords an opportunity to be heard and, when parole is denied, informs the inmate in what respects he falls short of qualifying for parole, affords the process that is due and the Constitution does not require more.
  Date: 1979-05-29
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, Supreme Court of the United States, 1979-05-29 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Board reserved discretion to depart from parole guidelines; tentative month not a grant
  The Board has reserved to itself the right to exercise its discretion to disagree with the parole guidelines recommendation and to establish a tentative parole month at any time prior to sentence expiration, so setting a tentative parole month is not a grant of parole or the creation of a legitimate claim of entitlement to parole.
  Date: 1996-01-08
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Vargas v. Morris, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1996-01-08 (court record via CourtListener)

- [reported] Sixth Circuit in Hester (2025) followed Swarthout v. Cooke on parole liberty interest
  In Michael Hester v. Chester County, Tenn. (6th Cir., 2025-12-19), the court followed Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 219–20 (2011) (per curiam), on the parole-statute liberty-interest question.
  Date: 2025-12-19
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Michael Hester v. Chester Cnty., Tenn., Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 2025-12-19 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] 1983 Georgia Constitution Art. IV, Sec. VII, Par. II: board powers set by law except Board of Pardons and Paroles
  Article IV, Section VII, Paragraph II of the 1983 Georgia Constitution provides that the powers and duties of members of constitutional boards and commissions, except the Board of Pardons and Paroles, shall be as provided by law. Quoted text: 'The powers and duties of members of constitutional boards and commissions provided for in this Article, except the Board of Pardons and Paroles, shall be as provided by law.'
  Date: 1983-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Charron v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1984-09-06 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Acoli question presented: arbitrariness of parole denial
  The New Jersey Supreme Court's case page for Acoli v. New Jersey State Parole Board frames the question presented as whether the parole board's determination that there was a substantial likelihood that Sundiata Acoli would commit a crime if released on parole was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Supreme Case A-73-20 - Sundiata Acoli v. New Jersey State Parole Board | NJ Courts

- [confirmed] Terry v. Hamrick: Trial court control of parole conditions violates separation of powers
  The Supreme Court of Georgia held that a trial court's attempt to control parole conditions violates the Georgia Constitution's separation-of-powers provision (Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. I, Sec. II, Par. III), and the offending portion of the sentence must be vacated.
  Date: 2008-06-30
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Terry v. Hamrick, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2008-06-30 (court record via CourtListener)

- [reported] New Mexico Supreme Court cites Board of Pardons v. Allen on parole release when designated findings made
  In State v. Houidobre (2024), the New Mexico Supreme Court discussed Board of Pardons v. Allen, quoting the proposition that "parole release will be granted" when the designated findings are made (Id. at 376-78).
  Date: 2024-11-18
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: State v. Houidobre, New Mexico Supreme Court, 2024-11-18 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] No federal constitutional right to parole
  The Eleventh Circuit stated that it is well-settled that there is no federal constitutional right to parole.
  Date: 2001-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Larry Jones v. Walter S. Ray, Chairman, Bobby K. Whitworth, U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, 2001-11-01 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Two Attorneys General opined predecessor parole statutes violated separation of powers
  Two different Georgia Attorneys General issued opinions (Op. Atty. Gen. 55-519 and Op. Atty. Gen. 69-431) concluding that a predecessor of the recidivist parole statute and a statute limiting parole for certain drug offenders violated the separation of powers provisions of the Georgia Constitution. The Board may not have enforced parole ineligibility as a result. The Supreme Court of Georgia noted Attorney General opinions are persuasive but not binding on appellate courts.
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Moore v. Ray, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1998-05-18 (court record via CourtListener)

- [reported] Davis court applied Swarthout two-step due process inquiry
  In R. Davis, Jr. v. PA DOC, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania followed Swarthout v. Cooke, which reaffirmed a two-step inquiry to prisoner due process.
  Date: 2026-08-04
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: R. Davis, Jr. v. PA DOC, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2026-08-04 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] OCGA § 42-9-1 declares Board of Pardons and Paroles functions executive
  OCGA § 42-9-1 declares the legislative policy that the duties, powers, and functions of the State Board of Pardons and Paroles are executive in character and that no other body is authorized to usurp or substitute its functions for those imposed upon the board.
  Date: 1993-03-08
  Tags: legal,parole,policy
  Sources: Stephens v. State, Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1993-03-08 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Hamm entitled to mandamus to remove parole-officer-imposed sex offender conditions
  The Georgia Supreme Court held that a parolee was entitled to mandamus to compel removal of sex-offender conditions imposed by a parole officer rather than by the Board itself, because he had a clear legal right to compel their removal as a term of his parole.
  Date: 2000-05-30
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Hamm v. Ray, 2000-05-30 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Sultenfuss three-factor liberty interest test
  The en banc court's three-factor test derives from the Supreme Court's analysis that the use of explicitly mandatory language in connection with specified substantive predicates limiting discretion forces the conclusion that a state has created a liberty interest, as applied to Greenholtz and Board of Pardons v. Allen.
  Date: 1994-10-05
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Stephen Sultenfuss, Charles McMulling v. Wayne Snow, Jr., James T. Morris, Mobley Howell, Michael H. Wing, Bettye O. Hutchings, Michael J. Bowers, 1994-10-05 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Brown v. Barrow cites Justice v. State Board of Pardons and Paroles
  The Eleventh Circuit in Brown v. Barrow (2008) cited Justice v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles, 234 Ga. 749, 218 S.E.2d 45 (1975), approving the trial court's construing of a habeas petition as a writ of mandamus in a factually similar case.
  Date: 2008-01-11
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Brown v. Barrow, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 2008-01-11 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Georgia Constitution: qualifications, compensation, and removal of constitutional board members set by law
  A compiled text of Ga. Const. art. IV, § VII, ¶ I states that the qualifications, compensation, and removal from office of members of constitutional boards and commissions provided for in that article shall be as provided by law.
  Tags: legal,policy
  Sources: Article IV, Georgia Constitution - Ballotpedia

- [reported] Second Circuit distinguished Jago v. Van Curen based on detailed parole regulations
  In Victory v. Pataki (2d Cir., 2016-02-01), the court held that, in light of detailed regulatory guidelines, the Supreme Court's decision in Jago v. Van Curen, 454 U.S. 14 (1981), was inapt.
  Date: 2016-02-01
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: Victory v. Pataki, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2016-02-01 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] 1982 Constitution barred parole for 25 years for death-commuted and armed robbery sentences
  The Constitution of Georgia as originally ratified provided in article IV, section II, paragraph II(b) that when a sentence of death is commuted to life imprisonment, the board shall not have authority to grant a pardon until the person has served at least 25 years in the penitentiary and the person shall not become eligible for parole prior to serving at least 25 years, and that when a person is convicted of armed robbery the board was likewise restricted.
  Date: 1982-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Constitution of the state of Georgia ratified, November 2, 1982, proclaimed, December 21, 1982 - Digital Library of Georgia

- [reported] Mandamus available when Parole Board fails statutory duties (Ray v. Barber)
  Manley v. State (2010) cited Ray v. Barber, 273 Ga. 856, 857, 548 S.E.2d 283 (2001), which affirmed a mandamus order where the Parole Board failed to follow its statutory duties and its rules in determining a tentative parole date.
  Date: 2001-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Manley v. State, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2010-04-09 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] California Penal Code § 3041(b): Board shall grant parole unless public safety requires otherwise
  California law provides that the panel or the board, sitting en banc, 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.
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: California Code, PEN 3041.

- [confirmed] Rosenkrantz: Governor's parole decision subject to limited 'some evidence' judicial review
  The California Supreme Court concluded that a Governor's decision granting or denying parole is subject to a limited judicial review to determine only whether the decision is supported by 'some evidence.'
  Date: 2002-12-16
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: In Re Rosenkrantz, 2002-12-16 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Cooke and Clay received at least the process due
  The Court held that Cooke and Clay received at least the process due because they were allowed to speak at their parole hearings and to contest the evidence against them, were afforded access to their records in advance, and were notified as to the reasons why parole was denied.
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: law.cornell.edu: 10 333

- [confirmed] Dumschat quotes Greenholtz: no constitutional right to conditional release
  Dumschat quotes Greenholtz's holding that there is no constitutional or inherent right of a convicted person to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence.
  Date: 1981-06-17
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: Connecticut Board of Pardons v. Dumschat, Supreme Court of the United States, 1981-06-17 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Williamson: no statutory right to minimum term shorter than maximum
  The Hawaii Supreme Court held that a prisoner does not have a statutory right to have his or her minimum term of imprisonment set at a period shorter than the maximum sentence.
  Date: 2001-11-29
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: Williamson v. Hawai'i Paroling Authority, 2001-11-29 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] O.C.G.A. § 42-9-40(b) adoption of guidelines via rules
  O.C.G.A. § 42-9-40(b) requires that the parole guidelines system be adopted by rules or regulations of the board, in conformity with the Georgia Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 13 of Title 50).
  Date: 1980-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 42-9-40 (GPS's copy of the Code)

- [reported] Marks v. State follows Williamson on absence of parole liberty interest
  Marks v. State (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 2026-04-23) followed Williamson v. Hawai'i Paroling Authority, which held that a prisoner does not have a protected liberty interest in parole.
  Date: 2026-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Marks v. State, Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 2026-04-23 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] O.C.G.A. § 42-9-53(d): public hearings and transcripts exempt from confidentiality
  O.C.G.A. § 42-9-53(d) exempts from the confidentiality rule: 'All hearings required to be held by this chapter shall be public, and the transcript thereof shall be exempt from subsection (b) of this Code section. All records and documents which were public records at the time they were received by the board shall be exempt from subsection (b) of this Code section. All information, reports, and documents required by law to be made available to the General Assembly, the Governor, or the state auditor shall be exempt from subsection (b) of this Code section.'
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 42-9-53 (GPS's copy of the Code)

- [confirmed] Michigan parole grant appealable by prosecutor or victim
  Under MCL 791.234(11), a prisoner's release on parole is discretionary with the parole board, and the action of the parole board in granting a parole is appealable by the prosecutor of the county from which the prisoner was committed or the victim of the crime for which the prisoner was convicted.
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: MCL - Section 791.234 - Michigan Legislature

- [confirmed] Justice v. State Board: Parole Board's powers are discretionary
  In Justice v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles (1975), the Supreme Court of Georgia held that the Board's power to grant reprieves, pardons and paroles, commute penalties, remove disabilities and remit sentences is discretionary (citing Code Ann. § 2-3011).
  Date: 1975-06-24
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Justice v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1975-06-24 (court record via CourtListener)

- [reported] Michigan Court of Appeals: statutory language can create liberty interest in parole
  The Michigan Court of Appeals stated that specific language in a state statute can create a liberty interest in parole release requiring due process protection where the statute limits the parole authority's discretion, citing Olim v. Wakinekona that a State creates a protected liberty interest by placing substantive limitations on official discretion.
  Date: 2022-01-27
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Carlton Vur Adams v. Parole Board, 2022-01-27 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Resolution set publication and ratification procedure for proposed amendment
  The resolution provided that the proposed constitutional amendment would be published and submitted as provided in Article X, Section I, Paragraph II of the Georgia Constitution, and upon ratification would become part of the Constitution.
  Date: 1994-01-01
  Tags: legal,legislation
  Sources: Ga. L. 1994, p. 2015 (Acts and resolutions of the General Assembly of the state of Georgia 1994 [volume 1])

- [confirmed] U.S. Supreme Court: Montana statute creates liberty interest in parole
  In Board of Pardons v. Allen, the U.S. Supreme Court held that when scrutinized under the Greenholtz standards, the Montana statute clearly creates a liberty interest in parole release protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, even though the release decision is necessarily subjective and predictive and the Board's discretion is very broad.
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: BOARD OF PARDONS and Henry Burgess, Petitioners v. George ALLEN and Dale Jacobsen etc. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

- [confirmed] Parole guidelines do not control final parole decision; Board reserves discretion to deviate
  In Daker v. Ray, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that the parole guidelines established under OCGA § 42-9-40(a) do not control the final parole decision; the Board expressly reserved its discretion to deviate from the recommended parole date.
  Date: 2002-04-29
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Daker v. Ray, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2002-04-29 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Greenholtz distinguishes parole release from parole revocation
  Greenholtz distinguished parole release from parole revocation, stating there is a crucial distinction between being deprived of a liberty one has, as in parole, and being denied a conditional liberty that one desires.
  Date: 1979-05-29
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, Supreme Court of the United States, 1979-05-29 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Tentative parole month does not implicate due process
  Setting a tentative parole month is not a grant of parole or the creation of a legitimate claim of entitlement to parole as of the date tentatively set, so due process is not implicated.
  Date: 1996-01-08
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Vargas v. Morris, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1996-01-08 (court record via CourtListener)

- [reported] Sixth Circuit in Hester found argument difficult to square with Jago v. Van Curen
  In Hester v. Chester County, Tenn., the Sixth Circuit wrote that it found it 'difficult to square Hester's argument with Jago v. Van Curen, 454 U.S. 14', invoking the Supreme Court precedent limiting liberty interests in parole release.
  Date: 2025-12-19
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Michael Hester v. Chester Cnty., Tenn., Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 2025-12-19 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Charron: OCGA § 42-9-46 notice requirement does not limit Board's substantive power
  OCGA § 42-9-46, requiring the Board to give the sentencing judge and district attorney written notice before considering for parole an inmate who has not served the statutory minimum time, places no limitations on the substantive power of the board and therefore is not an unconstitutional infringement on the powers of the Board. Quoted text: 'However, interpreting these provisions as meaning that the board can consider an inmate for parole before service of the minimum times specified in § 42-9-45 (b), so long as the notice required by § 42-9-46 is given, we conclude that there is no unconstitutional infringement on the powers of the board. ... However, § 42-9-46 places no limitations on the substantive power of the board. It merely provides that before that power is exercised, notice to vitally interested authorities be given.'
  Date: 1984-09-06
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Charron v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1984-09-06 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Current NJ parole release standard: preponderance of evidence
  New Jersey's current parole release statute (N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.53) provides that an adult inmate not eligible for administrative parole release shall be released on parole at the time of primary parole eligibility, unless the record indicates by a preponderance of the evidence that the inmate has failed to cooperate in his or her own rehabilitation or that there is a reasonable expectation that the inmate will violate conditions of parole if released at that time.
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: New Jersey Statutes Title 30. Institutions and Agencies 30 § 4-123.53 | FindLaw

- [reported] New Mexico Supreme Court applies Olim v. Wakinekona to parole board objective criteria
  In Aragon v. Martinez (2025), the New Mexico Supreme Court followed Olim v. Wakinekona, referencing "17 objective criteria for the Parole Board to follow" and quoting Olim, 461 U.S. at 249 ("If the").
  Date: 2025-07-14
  Tags: legal,parole,policy
  Sources: Aragon v. Martinez, New Mexico Supreme Court, 2025-07-14 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] False information in parole file can violate due process under Monroe v. Thigpen
  In Jones v. Ray, the Eleventh Circuit stated that while the use of false information in a parole file can be a due process violation under Monroe v. Thigpen, 932 F.2d 1437, 1442 (11th Cir. 1991), a prisoner cannot succeed without evidence that the Board relied on such false information, and conclusory allegations are insufficient.
  Date: 2001-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Larry Jones v. Walter S. Ray, Chairman, Bobby K. Whitworth, U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, 2001-11-01 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Greenholtz expectancy of release entitled to constitutional protection
  In Woodard, the Court stated that in Greenholtz, the expectancy of release on parole created by the mandatory language of the Nebraska statute was entitled to some measure of constitutional protection, and distinguished that parole statute from Ohio's clemency procedures.
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY, et al., Petitioners, v. Eugene WOODARD. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

- [confirmed] Mandamus lies to compel parole consideration once board eligibility term served
  In Riley v. Garrett (1963), the Supreme Court of Georgia held that mandamus will lie to compel members of the State Board of Pardons and Paroles to consider and pass upon a prisoner's parole application where the prisoner has served less than the minimum term of an indeterminate sentence but more than the term required by board rules to be eligible for parole consideration.
  Date: 1963-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Riley v. Garrett, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1963-10-15 (court record via CourtListener)

- [reported] Sixth Circuit followed Allen on parole board discretion
  In Anthony McClendon El v. Heidi Washington, the Sixth Circuit followed Board of Pardons v. Allen regarding discretion in its parole board.
  Date: 2025-07-21
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Anthony McClendon El v. Heidi Washington, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 2025-07-21 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] OCGA § 42-9-20 grants Board duty to determine parole release and conditions
  OCGA § 42-9-20 provides that among the board's general duties is determining which inmates serving sentences imposed by a court of this state may be released on pardon or parole and fixing the time and conditions thereof.
  Date: 1993-03-08
  Tags: legal,parole,policy
  Sources: Stephens v. State, Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1993-03-08 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Greenholtz: no constitutional right to conditional release
  Quoting Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979): '[t]here is no constitutional or inherent right of a convicted person to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence.'
  Date: 1979-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Matter of Copeland v. Towns, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, 2025-12-31 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Board rule 475-3-.01 rulemaking authority
  The Board of Pardons and Paroles' rule 475-3-.01 states the Board may adopt and promulgate rules not inconsistent with the law.
  Tags: parole,policy,legal
  Sources: GA R&R - GAC - Chapter 475-3 RULES

- [confirmed] Brown v. Barrow: mandamus is proper means to challenge parole decision
  Brown v. Barrow (11th Cir. 2008) cited Johnson v. Griffin, 271 Ga. 663, 522 S.E.2d 657, 658 (1999), specifying that mandamus is the proper means for challenging an adverse parole decision.
  Date: 2008-01-11
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Brown v. Barrow, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 2008-01-11 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Georgia Constitution allows two-thirds General Assembly vote to set mandatory sentences and bar parole for certain violent offenses
  A provision of the Georgia Constitution provides that the General Assembly may by general law approved by two-thirds of the members elected to each branch of the General Assembly in a roll-call vote provide for minimum mandatory sentences and for sentences required to be served in their entirety for persons convicted of armed robbery, kidnapping, rape, aggravated child molestation, aggravated sodomy, or aggravated sexual battery, and when so provided by such Act, the board shall not have the authority to consider such persons for pardon, parole, or commutation during that portion of the sentence.
  Tags: parole,legal,policy,violence
  Sources: Article IV, Georgia Constitution - Ballotpedia

- [reported] Third Circuit followed Jago v. Van Curen on rescission of parole before execution
  In Phillip Fantone v. Fred Latini (3d Cir., 2015-02-18), the court followed Jago v. Van Curen, noting that Pennsylvania law provides that the Parole Board may at any time rescind an order granting parole until it is 'executed', i.e., the inmate is released on parole.
  Date: 2015-02-18
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: Phillip Fantone v. Fred Latini, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 2015-02-18 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] 1982 Constitution excepted Board of Pardons and Paroles from 'as provided by law' rule
  The Constitution of Georgia as originally ratified provided in article IV, section VII, paragraph II that the powers and duties of members of constitutional boards and commissions provided for in that article, except the Board of Pardons and Paroles, shall be as provided by law.
  Date: 1982-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Constitution of the state of Georgia ratified, November 2, 1982, proclaimed, December 21, 1982 - Digital Library of Georgia

- [reported] Legislature may not limit Board's substantive parole discretion (Greene)
  Greene v. Georgia Pardons and Parole Bd. (N.D. Ga. 1992) explained that, subsequent to the passage of the 1983 Georgia Constitution, the Georgia Supreme Court has held that the legislature may not place limitations on the substantive powers of the Board to exercise discretion in consideration of an inmate for parole; the court referenced Justice v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles, 234 Ga. 749, 751-52, 218 S.E.2d 45 (1975).
  Date: 1992-10-26
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Greene v. Georgia Pardons and Parole Bd., District Court, N.D. Georgia, 1992-10-26 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] McQuillion v. Duncan: California parole scheme creates protected liberty interest
  The Ninth Circuit held that under clearly established Supreme Court precedent, the parole scheme in California under which McQuillion was given his parole date in 1979 gave rise to a constitutionally protected liberty interest. The court held that California's parole scheme gives rise to a cognizable liberty interest in release on parole.
  Date: 2002-09-25
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Carl D. McQuillion v. William Duncan, Warden Attorney General of the State of California, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, 2002-09-25 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Rosenkrantz: statutory parole standards give rise to protected liberty interest under California due process
  The Supreme Court of California held that the statutory provisions setting standards and criteria limiting the Governor's review of a parole decision under article V, section 8(b) of the California Constitution give rise to a protected liberty interest under the California due process clause.
  Date: 2002-12-16
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: In Re Rosenkrantz, 2002-12-16 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] No federal substantive requirement from California's 'some evidence' rule
  The Court held that no opinion of the Court supports converting California's 'some evidence' rule into a substantive federal requirement; the liberty interest at issue is the interest in receiving parole when the California standards for parole have been met, with the minimum procedures adequate under the Due Process Clause being those set forth in Greenholtz.
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: law.cornell.edu: 10 333

- [confirmed] Dumschat: statistical probabilities alone generate no constitutional protections
  The 'statistical probabilities standing alone generate no constitutional protections' sentence originates in Dumschat's own majority text (not a quotation of Greenholtz); Dumschat supports it with Leis v. Flynt's estoppel point and says the ground for a claim must be found in statutes or other rules.
  Date: 1981-06-17
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: Connecticut Board of Pardons v. Dumschat, Supreme Court of the United States, 1981-06-17 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Williamson: judicial intervention when HPA acts arbitrarily
  The Hawaii Supreme Court held that judicial intervention in parole and minimum-term decisions is appropriate where the Hawaii Paroling Authority has failed to exercise any discretion at all, acted arbitrarily and capriciously so as to give rise to a due process violation, or otherwise violated the prisoner's constitutional rights.
  Date: 2001-11-29
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: Williamson v. Hawai'i Paroling Authority, 2001-11-29 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] O.C.G.A. § 42-9-40 original enactment 1980, no amendments
  O.C.G.A. § 42-9-40's only history entry is its original 1980 enactment (Ga. L. 1980, p. 404, § 1), meaning the parole guidelines system statute analyzed in Sultenfuss has not been amended since.
  Date: 1980-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 42-9-40 (GPS's copy of the Code)

- [reported] Rapozo v. State explains Williamson's deference to paroling authority
  Rapozo v. State (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 2026-10-23) explained Williamson v. Hawai'i Paroling Authority, noting that judicial intervention in parole decisions is typically avoided.
  Date: 2026-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Rapozo v. State, Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 2026-10-23 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] O.C.G.A. § 42-9-53: required parole hearings are public; transcripts exempt from confidentiality
  O.C.G.A. § 42-9-53 provides that all hearings required to be held under the pardons and paroles chapter shall be public, and the transcript of such hearings shall be exempt from the confidentiality subsection.
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 42-9-53 (GPS's copy of the Code)

- [confirmed] Michigan court rule and statute allow prosecutor and victim to appeal parole grant
  Michigan Court Rule 7.104(D) and Michigan Compiled Laws §791.234(11) allow the prosecutor and the victim to appeal a decision by the Parole Board to grant parole to a prisoner.
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: SADO - Article - Navigating Through the Appeal of A Parole Decision

- [confirmed] Justice v. State Board: no error to refuse to compel parole even if all facts proved
  In Justice v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles (1975), the Supreme Court of Georgia held that even assuming the petitioner had proved every factual allegation in his petition, it would have been error for the trial court to require the Parole Board, by mandamus or otherwise, to grant him parole.
  Date: 1975-06-24
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Justice v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1975-06-24 (court record via CourtListener)

- [reported] Michigan Court of Appeals: Michigan parole system creates no constitutionally protected interest
  The Michigan Court of Appeals held, quoting In re Parole of Hill, that Michigan's parole system, in and of itself, does not create a constitutionally protected interest in parole.
  Date: 2022-01-27
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Carlton Vur Adams v. Parole Board, 2022-01-27 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Sultenfuss en banc holding: Georgia parole system creates no liberty interest
  In Sultenfuss v. Snow, the en banc Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment and held that the Georgia parole system does not create a liberty interest in parole protected by the Due Process Clause.
  Date: 1994-10-05
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Stephen Sultenfuss, Charles McMulling v. Wayne Snow, Jr., James T. Morris, Mobley Howell, Michael... – CourtListener.com

- [confirmed] Montana parole statute's mandatory 'shall release' language
  The Montana parole statute at issue in Board of Pardons v. Allen provided that, subject to specified restrictions, the board shall release on parole any person confined in the Montana state prison or the women's correction center when in its opinion there is reasonable probability that the prisoner can be released without detriment to the prisoner or to the community.
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: BOARD OF PARDONS and Henry Burgess, Petitioners v. George ALLEN and Dale Jacobsen etc. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

- [confirmed] Sultenfuss reliance on Slocum distinction between mandatory release and discretionary criteria
  The Sultenfuss majority relied on Slocum v. Georgia State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, which found no liberty interest in the Georgia parole system prior to statutory changes, for the distinction between a scheme that requires release unless adverse findings are made and a scheme that simply obligates the board to consider criteria in exercising its discretion.
  Date: 1994-10-05
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Stephen Sultenfuss, Charles McMulling v. Wayne Snow, Jr., James T. Morris, Mobley Howell, Michael... – CourtListener.com

- [confirmed] Prisoner entitled to timely consideration for parole under OCGA § 42-9-45(a),(b)
  The Supreme Court of Georgia in Daker v. Ray held that a Georgia prisoner is entitled to the Board's timely consideration for parole under OCGA § 42-9-45(a),(b).
  Date: 2002-04-29
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Daker v. Ray, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2002-04-29 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] No inherent constitutional right to parole; Nebraska procedures satisfied due process
  There is no inherent constitutional right to parole. Accepting that the mandatory 'shall ... unless' language of Nebraska's parole statute creates an expectancy of release entitled to some constitutional protection, the Court held that Nebraska's procedures satisfied due process: an informal review hearing, an interview, and a statement of reasons on denial. The Court rejected the Eighth Circuit's requirement of a formal hearing for every inmate and a statement of the evidence relied on, and reversed.
  Date: 1979-05-29
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, Supreme Court of the United States, 1979-05-29 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Vargas distinguished from Sultenfuss on state constitutional grounds
  The Georgia Supreme Court distinguished the state-constitutional due process claim in Vargas from Sultenfuss v. Snow, in which the Eleventh Circuit held the Georgia parole system did not create a liberty interest in parole protected by the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
  Date: 1996-01-08
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Vargas v. Morris, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1996-01-08 (court record via CourtListener)

- [reported] Sixth Circuit in Hester explained Greenholtz exclusionary factors and mandatory language
  In Hester v. Chester County, Tenn., the Sixth Circuit explained Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 11, addressing the exclusionary factors applied and the significance of the mandatory nature of the parole statute's language.
  Date: 2025-12-19
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Michael Hester v. Chester Cnty., Tenn., Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 2025-12-19 (court record via CourtListener)

- [reported] Charron superior court ruling: expressio unius barred legislative regulation of Board
  The superior court below had found that the 1983 Georgia Constitution expresses no authority for legislative interference with the Board's exercise of its powers except for the provisions of Art. IV, Sec. II, Par. II subparagraph (c), and concluded under the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius that no other forms of legislative regulation are permissible. Quoted text: 'The superior court found that except for the provisions of sub-paragraph (c) of Art. IV, Sec. II, Par. II of the 1983 Georgia Constitution, the 1983 Constitution expresses no authority for legislative in *277 terference with the board’s exercise of its powers. The court ruled that under the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the expression of one thing amounts to the exclusion of another), Porter v. Calhoun County, 250 Ga. 566, 567-568 (300 SE2d 143) (1983), no other forms of legislative regulation are permissible.'
  Date: 1984-09-06
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Charron v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1984-09-06 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] NJ court rule: appeals from final agency decisions
  New Jersey's court rule governing appeals as of right to the Appellate Division (Rule 2:2-3) provides that appeals may be taken to review final decisions or actions of any state administrative agency or officer, and to review the validity of any rule promulgated by such agency or officer.
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: Rule 2:2-3: Appeals to the Appellate… | N.J. Ct. R. Pt. 2 | Court Rules Network

- [confirmed] Terry v. Hamrick: Habeas available for unconstitutional-sentence claim; probation restriction upheld
  The Court held that habeas corpus is an available avenue for a claim that a sentence is unconstitutional, and on remand the habeas court must enter an order granting the writ as to the parole-condition issue. The Court also upheld the same county-banishment restriction as a condition of probation.
  Date: 2008-06-30
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Terry v. Hamrick, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2008-06-30 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] N.Y. Executive Law § 259-i(2)(a) requires written detailed parole denial reasons within two weeks
  N.Y. Executive Law § 259-i(2)(a) provides that if parole is not granted upon review, the incarcerated individual shall be informed in writing within two weeks of the appearance of the factors and reasons for denial; such reasons shall be given in detail and not in conclusory terms; and the board shall specify a date not more than twenty-four months from the determination for reconsideration, with the same procedures to be followed upon reconsideration.
  Tags: legal,parole,policy
  Sources: New York Consolidated Laws, Executive Law - EXC § 259-i | FindLaw

- [confirmed] Woodard: two inquiries on clemency constitutional limits
  The Court stated that it must resolve whether an inmate has a protected life or liberty interest in clemency proceedings under either Dumschat or Evitts v. Lucey.
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY, et al., Petitioners, v. Eugene WOODARD. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

- [confirmed] Mandamus is only remedy to collaterally attack void conviction and compel parole consideration
  In Riley v. Garrett (1963), the Supreme Court of Georgia held that mandamus is the only remedy available by which a petitioner can collaterally attack a void judgment of conviction and compel the Board of Pardons and Paroles to consider his application for parole.
  Date: 1963-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Riley v. Garrett, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1963-10-15 (court record via CourtListener)

- [reported] Sixth Circuit followed Olim v. Wakinekona on liberty interest
  In McClendon El v. Washington, the Sixth Circuit followed Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 248–51 (1983), and stated that prisoners do not have a liberty interest in parole.
  Date: 2025-07-21
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Anthony McClendon El v. Heidi Washington, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 2025-07-21 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] OCGA § 42-9-44 requires Board to adopt parole rules and conditions
  OCGA § 42-9-44 implements OCGA § 42-9-20 by providing procedures to be followed in placing a person on parole, requiring the board to adopt general rules concerning the terms and conditions of parole, and listing various parolee requirements which may be imposed by the board.
  Date: 1993-03-08
  Tags: legal,parole,policy
  Sources: Stephens v. State, Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1993-03-08 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Hamm v. Ray distinguished Vargas v. Morris
  In Hamm v. Ray, the Supreme Court of Georgia distinguished Vargas v. Morris, 266 Ga. 141, 465 S.E.2d 275 (1996).
  Date: 2000-05-30
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Hamm v. Ray, 2000-05-30 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Two-step liberty/procedure framework (Dagro citing Thompson)
  The court described the two-step inquiry: 'the first asks whether there exists a liberty or property interest which has been interfered with by the State; the second examines whether the procedures attendant upon that deprivation were constitutionally sufficient' (citing Kentucky Dept. of Corr. v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460).
  Date: 2026-02-25
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Dagro Assoc., LLC v. City of Yonkers, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, 2026-02-25 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Garner v. Jones explains Justice: parole decisions rest on numerous factors
  The U.S. Supreme Court in Garner v. Jones (2000) cited Justice v. State Board of Pardons and Paroles, 234 Ga. 749, 751-752, 218 S.E.2d 45, 46-47 (1975), explaining by illustration to one prisoner's circumstances that parole decisions rest upon the Board's consideration of numerous factors specific to an inmate's offense, rehabilitative effort, and other factors.
  Date: 2000-04-18
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Garner v. Jones, Supreme Court of the United States, 2000-04-18 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Georgia Constitution: powers and duties of constitutional boards except Parole Board set by law
  A provision of the Georgia Constitution provides that the powers and duties of members of constitutional boards and commissions provided for in that article, except the Board of Pardons and Paroles, shall be as provided by law.
  Tags: legal,policy
  Sources: Article IV, Georgia Constitution - Ballotpedia

- [reported] Eleventh Circuit explained Jones v. Ray in disparate-treatment jurisprudence
  In C. W. v. Steve Smith (11th Cir., 2026-06-17), the court explained Jones v. Ray in the context of disparate-treatment jurisprudence, quoting id. at 946–47.
  Date: 2026-06-17
  Tags: legal
  Sources: C. W. v. Steve Smith, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 2026-06-17 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Georgia Constitution vests Board with executive clemency and parole power
  The Georgia Constitution vests the State Board of Pardons and Paroles with 'the power of executive clemency, including the powers to grant reprieves, pardons, and paroles; to commute penalties; to remove disabilities imposed by law; and to remit any part of a' sentence.
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: sos.ga.gov: Georgia Constitution

- [reported] Georgia Supreme Court construed parole provision as precatory (Jones v. Georgia State Board)
  In James Huston Jones v. Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles (11th Cir. 1995), the court noted that in Charron v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles, 253 Ga. 274, 319 S.E.2d 453, 455 (1984), the Georgia Supreme Court construed a parole provision as precatory rather than mandatory, thus avoiding its invalidation on state constitutional grounds.
  Date: 1995-07-28
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: James Huston Jones, and All Others Similarly Situated v. Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 1995-07-28 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] McQuillion v. Duncan: 'Some evidence' standard for rescinding parole date
  The Ninth Circuit held that the process due before a California prisoner can be deprived of a liberty interest in a previously granted parole date is a showing that there is 'some evidence' in the record to support a later rescission of that date.
  Date: 2002-09-25
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Carl D. McQuillion v. William Duncan, Warden Attorney General of the State of California, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, 2002-09-25 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Rosenkrantz: prisoners possess protected liberty interest in Board parole decisions
  The Supreme Court of California held that prisoners possess a protected liberty interest in connection with parole decisions rendered by the Board, and that under California law this liberty interest underlying a Governor's parole review decisions is protected by due process of law.
  Date: 2002-12-16
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: In Re Rosenkrantz, 2002-12-16 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] California parole statute quoted: release date unless public safety requires more
  The Court quoted California's parole statute as providing that the Board of Prison Terms 'shall set a release date unless it determines that ... consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration.' Cal. Penal Code Ann. §3041(b) (West Supp. 2010).
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: law.cornell.edu: 10 333

- [confirmed] Dumschat: commutation petition is an appeal for clemency, not parole
  The Court held that respondents' contention that the Board's consistent practice of granting commutations to most life inmates is sufficient to create a protectible liberty interest misconceives the nature of a decision to commute a sentence, because a petition for commutation is nothing more than an appeal for clemency, and this case does not involve parole.
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: CONNECTICUT BOARD OF PARDONS et al., Petitioners, v. David DUMSCHAT et al. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

- [confirmed] O.C.G.A. § 42-9-42(c) reasonable probability requirement for parole
  O.C.G.A. § 42-9-42(c) provides that no inmate shall be placed on parole unless the board finds a reasonable probability that the inmate will live and conduct himself or herself as a respectable and law-abiding person and that release will be compatible with the inmate's own welfare and the welfare of society.
  Date: 2025-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 42-9-42 (GPS's copy of the Code)

- [reported] Mason v. Hawaii Paroling Authority explains Williamson
  Mason v. Hawaii Paroling Authority (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 2021-02-05) explained Williamson v. Hawai'i Paroling Authority, citing a 2000 decision later reversed on other grounds.
  Date: 2021-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Mason v. Hawaii Paroling Authority, Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 2021-02-05 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] O.C.G.A. § 42-9-45(a): parole consideration is automatic, no application required
  O.C.G.A. § 42-9-45(a) provides that the board's parole eligibility rules 'shall set forth the time when the automatic initial consideration for parole of inmates under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections shall take place and also the times at which periodic reconsideration thereafter shall take place' and that 'Such consideration shall be automatic, and no written or formal application shall be required.'
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 42-9-45 (GPS's copy of the Code)

- [confirmed] Michigan appellate benchbook: parole board discretion eliminates liberty interest in parole
  The Michigan judiciary's appellate benchbook states that Michigan law gives its parole board the type of discretion that eliminates any liberty interest in parole, citing McClendon El v Washington (6th Cir. 2025) and MCL 791.234(11), and separately notes that MCL 791.235(1) provides 'There is no entitlement to parole.'
  Date: 2025-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: courts.michigan.gov: Appeals From and Objections to Parole Board Decisions

- [confirmed] Justice v. State Board: habeas corpus unavailable to complain of parole denial
  The Supreme Court of Georgia held in Justice v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles (1975) that Duncan v. Ricketts does not hold that a prisoner can use habeas corpus to complain of denial of the grant of parole, and that the trial court did not err in denying habeas corpus relief to a petitioner complaining of parole denial.
  Date: 1975-06-24
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Justice v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1975-06-24 (court record via CourtListener)

- [reported] MCL 791.233e: departure from parole guidelines requires substantial and compelling objective reasons in writing
  Michigan's parole-guidelines statute states that the parole board may depart from the guidelines by denying parole to a prisoner with a high probability of parole only for 'substantial and compelling objective reasons stated in writing,' and lists the limited circumstances that qualify as such reasons.
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: MCL - Section 791.233e - Michigan Legislature, MCL [2]

- [confirmed] Sultenfuss rationale: statutory presumption against parole negates entitlement
  The Sultenfuss court concluded that Georgia's parole statutes and regulations do not mandate parole and contain a statutory presumption against parole, negating any reasonable claim of entitlement; the Board's substantial discretion and explicit authority to depart from grid recommendations mean no protected liberty interest in parole is created.
  Date: 1994-10-05
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Stephen Sultenfuss, Charles McMulling v. Wayne Snow, Jr., James T. Morris, Mobley Howell, Michael... – CourtListener.com

- [confirmed] U.S. Supreme Court: mandatory 'shall' creates presumption of release
  In Board of Pardons v. Allen, the Court stated that the Montana statute, like the Nebraska statute, uses mandatory language ('shall') to create a presumption that parole release will be granted when the designated findings are made.
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: BOARD OF PARDONS and Henry Burgess, Petitioners v. George ALLEN and Dale Jacobsen etc. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

- [confirmed] Eleventh Circuit holds Georgia parole system creates no due-process liberty interest
  The en banc Eleventh Circuit held that the Georgia parole system does not create a liberty interest in parole protected by the Due Process Clause, because the system contains a statutory presumption against parole and fails to limit meaningfully the discretion of state officials.
  Date: 1994-10-05
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Stephen Sultenfuss, Charles McMulling v. Wayne Snow, Jr., James T. Morris, Mobley Howell, Michael... – CourtListener.com

- [confirmed] Declaratory judgment not proper remedy to challenge void convictions
  In Daker v. Ray, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that where a prisoner asserts his convictions and sentences are void, declaratory judgment is not a proper remedy.
  Date: 2002-04-29
  Tags: legal
  Sources: Daker v. Ray, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2002-04-29 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Nebraska parole eligibility: one-half minimum term
  The Nebraska Supreme Court in Poindexter v. Houston quoted the current version of Neb. Rev. Stat. section 83-1,110 as providing that '[e]very committed offender shall be eligible for parole when the offender has served one-half the minimum term of his or her sentence.'
  Date: 2008-06-13
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Poindexter v. Houston, 2008-06-13 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Mandamus unavailable to compel reinstatement of tentative parole date
  The Georgia Supreme Court held that because setting an inmate's tentative parole month is the result of an exercise of discretion by the Board and no abuse of that discretion had been shown, mandamus does not lie to compel the Board to reinstate a different tentative parole date.
  Date: 1996-01-08
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Vargas v. Morris, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1996-01-08 (court record via CourtListener)

- [reported] Nebraska Supreme Court in Deckard v. Cotton applied Dumschat reasoning to discretionary parole discharge
  In Deckard v. Cotton, the Nebraska Supreme Court followed Connecticut Board of Pardons v. Dumschat, reasoning that because the Board's power to grant discharge from parole was expressly discretionary under the statutes, there was no clear ministerial duty.
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

- [confirmed] Charron: superior court struck down OCGA §§ 42-9-45(b) and 42-9-46; Supreme Court reversed
  In Charron, the Georgia Supreme Court recited that the superior court had struck down OCGA §§ 42-9-45(b) and 42-9-46 as unconstitutional, a ruling the Supreme Court then reversed. Quoted text: 'Accordingly, OCGA §§ 42-9-45 (b) and 42-9-46 were struck down by the superior court as unconstitutional.'
  Date: 1984-09-06
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Charron v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1984-09-06 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Acoli holding: presumptive release and Board's unmet burden
  The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that under N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.53 as it existed in 1979, Sundiata Acoli was presumptively entitled to release at the time of his parole hearing, and to overcome that presumption the Parole Board had the burden of demonstrating a substantial likelihood that, if released, Acoli would commit another crime; the Board did not meet that burden.
  Date: 2022-05-10
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Sundiata Acoli v. New Jersey State Parole Board (083980) (Statewide), 2022-05-10 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Terry v. Hamrick followed Stephens v. State
  The Terry v. Hamrick opinion followed Stephens v. State, 207 Ga. App. 645 (1993), on the separation-of-powers limitation on trial-court control of parole conditions.
  Date: 2008-06-30
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Terry v. Hamrick, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2008-06-30 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] N.Y. Executive Law § 259-c(4) requires written parole procedures incorporating risk and needs principles
  N.Y. Executive Law § 259-c(4) requires the Board of Parole to establish written procedures for making parole decisions. Such written procedures shall incorporate risk and needs principles to measure the rehabilitation of persons appearing before the board, the likelihood of success of such persons upon release, and assist members of the state board of parole in determining which incarcerated individuals may be released to parole supervision.
  Tags: legal,parole,policy
  Sources: New York Consolidated Laws, Executive Law - EXC § 259-c | FindLaw

- [confirmed] Heard v. Georgia State Board of Pardons & Paroles reaffirms no liberty interest
  In Heard v. Georgia State Board of Pardons & Paroles, the Eleventh Circuit stated that under Sultenfuss v. Snow, Georgia's parole system did not create a legitimate expectation of parole so that Georgia inmates have no liberty interest in parole, and that the Board has significant discretion in its application of, and departure from, the Parole Decision Guidelines.
  Date: 2007-03-13
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Heard v. Georgia State Board of Pardons & Paroles, U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, 2007-03-13 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Woodard: no majority for barring all clemency due-process interest
  The Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit. A unanimous Court (Part III) held that Ohio's voluntary clemency interview does not compel self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. On due process, only a four-Justice plurality (Part II) reasoned that Dumschat bars any protected interest in clemency proceedings; the four concurring Justices (O'Connor) held that some minimal procedural safeguards apply to capital clemency but that Ohio's procedures satisfied them, so no majority adopted the Part II rationale.
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY, et al., Petitioners, v. Eugene WOODARD. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

- [confirmed] Eleventh Circuit reaffirms Sultenfuss: Georgia parole system creates no legitimate expectation of parole
  In Porter v. Ray (11th Cir. 2006), the Eleventh Circuit reaffirmed its en banc holding in Sultenfuss v. Snow, 35 F.3d 1494, 1503 (11th Cir. 1995), that the Georgia parole system does not create a legitimate expectation of parole.
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Nathaniel Porter, Jr. v. Walter S. Ray, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, 2006-06-21 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Swarthout: no Supreme Court opinion converts 'some evidence' rule into federal requirement
  Swarthout v. Cooke holds that no opinion of the Supreme Court supports converting California's 'some evidence' rule into a substantive federal requirement.
  Date: 2011-01-24
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Swarthout v. Cooke, Supreme Court of the United States, 2011-01-24 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Court-imposed parole conditions are a nullity
  The Court of Appeals of Georgia held that any attempt by a court to impose its will over the Executive Department by imposing as part of a criminal sentence conditions operating as a prerequisite of or becoming automatically effective in the event of a subsequent parole would be a nullity and constitute an exercise of power granted exclusively to the Executive.
  Date: 1993-03-08
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: Stephens v. State, Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1993-03-08 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Hamm v. Ray explained Greenholtz on state discretion in parole
  In Hamm v. Ray, the Supreme Court of Georgia explained Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1979), noting that the state may be specific or general in defining conditions for release and factors considered by the parole authority, and that Georgia has chosen to afford broad discretionary power and authority in the Board with respect to the grant of parole.
  Date: 2000-05-30
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Hamm v. Ray, 2000-05-30 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Woodard plurality cited in Humphreys (11th Cir.)
  In Humphreys v. Commissioner, Ga. Dep't of Corrections, the Eleventh Circuit explained Ohio Adult Parole Auth. v. Woodard, referencing 'Justice O'Connor's binding opinion in Woodard, 523 U.S. at 289.'
  Date: 2025-12-15
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Stacey Humphreys v. Commissioner, Georgia Department of Corrections, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 2025-12-15 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Charron: OCGA § 42-9-46 allows parole consideration before minimum served
  The Court of Appeals of Georgia in Perez v. State cited Charron v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles, 253 Ga. 274 (1984), for the proposition that OCGA § 42-9-46 authorizes the Parole Board to consider an inmate for parole before the inmate has served the minimum time specified in § 42-9-45.
  Date: 2002-03-27
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Perez v. State, Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2002-03-27 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Harris v. Evans: parole power is discretionary with the Board
  The Eleventh Circuit in Harris v. Evans (1991) held that the exercise of the power to grant parole is discretionary with the Board, citing Justice v. State Board of Pardons and Paroles, 234 Ga. 749, 218 S.E.2d 45 (1975).
  Date: 1991-01-10
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Phillip Wayne Harris v. David Evans, Commissioner, Lanson Newsome, Deputy Commissioner, A.G. Thomas, Warden, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 1991-01-10 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Georgia Constitution: commuted death sentences require 25 years served before pardon or parole eligibility
  A provision of the Georgia Constitution provides that when a sentence of death is commuted to life imprisonment, the board shall not have the authority to grant a pardon to the convicted person until such person has served at least 25 years in the penitentiary, and such person shall not become eligible for parole at any time prior to serving at least 25 years in the penitentiary.
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Article IV, Georgia Constitution - Ballotpedia

- [reported] Bowers v. Hardwick referenced Riley v. Garrett on Georgia sodomy statute scope
  Bowers v. Hardwick (U.S. Supreme Court, 1986-09-11) explained Riley v. Garrett, 219 Ga. 345, 133 S.E.2d 367 (1963), in which the Georgia Supreme Court held that § 26-5901 did not prohibit heterosexual cunnilingus.
  Date: 1986-09-11
  Tags: legal
  Sources: Bowers v. Hardwick, Supreme Court of the United States, 1986-09-11 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Georgia Constitution excepts Board of Pardons and Paroles from 'as provided by law' powers rule
  The Georgia Constitution provides that the powers and duties of members of constitutional boards and commissions shall be 'as provided by law,' but expressly excepts the Board of Pardons and Paroles from that rule.
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: sos.ga.gov: Georgia Constitution

- [reported] Parole not guaranteed (Cruz v. State citing Ray v. Carthen)
  In Sabino Cruz v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2012), the court stated that parole is 'not guaranteed,' citing Ray v. Carthen, 275 Ga. 459, 460 (1), 569 S.E.2d 542 (2002).
  Date: 2012-05-10
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Sabino Cruz v. State, Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2012-05-10 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] McQuillion v. Duncan: 'Shall' release language creates expectation of parole
  In McQuillion v. Duncan, the Ninth Circuit held that the state parole scheme dictates that the Board 'shall' release prisoners like McQuillion unless one or more specified criteria are satisfied, and McQuillion therefore had an expectation of parole protected by the Due Process Clause.
  Date: 2002-09-25
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Carl D. McQuillion v. William Duncan, Warden Attorney General of the State of California, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, 2002-09-25 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Rosenkrantz: liberty interest plus due process requires 'some evidence' and judicial review of Governor's decision
  The Supreme Court of California held that because the requirement that the Governor's parole review be based on the same factors the Board must consider gives rise to a liberty interest protected by due process of law, and because due process of law requires that such a decision be supported by some evidence in the record, the Governor's decision is subject to judicial review to ensure compliance with this constitutional requirement.
  Date: 2002-12-16
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: In Re Rosenkrantz, 2002-12-16 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Daker v. Ray: parole guidelines establish eligibility only, not entitlement
  In re McGhee (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) cited Daker v. Ray (Ga. 2002) 275 Ga. 205, 206, 563 S.E.2d 429 for the proposition that parole guidelines simply establish an initial date of eligibility for parole, and the ultimate grant or denial of parole to a prisoner who is eligible under the guidelines remains a discretionary matter for the Board.
  Date: 2002-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: In re Mcghee, California Court of Appeal, 5th District, 2019-04-29 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Stevens dissent in Dumschat: residuum of constitutionally protected liberty
  Justice Stevens's dissent in Dumschat, joined by Justice Marshall, states that the deprivation of liberty that follows conviction of a criminal offense is not total; the individual possesses a residuum of constitutionally protected liberty even while in legal custody.
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: CONNECTICUT BOARD OF PARDONS et al., Petitioners, v. David DUMSCHAT et al. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

- [confirmed] HRS 706-669 procedural protections at parole hearings
  The Hawaii Paroling Authority is required by statute to afford prisoners reasonable notice of the hearing and opportunity to be heard, the opportunity to consult with persons the prisoner reasonably desires, representation and assistance of counsel (appointed if indigent), verbatim recording of the hearing, and availability of the HPA's guidelines for the uniform determination of minimum sentences.
  Date: 1993-01-01
  Tags: legal,parole,policy
  Sources: Williamson v. Hawai'i Paroling Authority, 2001-11-29 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] O.C.G.A. § 42-9-42(c) employment or self-sustaining requirement
  O.C.G.A. § 42-9-42(c) provides that no person shall be released on pardon or placed on parole unless the board is satisfied that he or she will be suitably employed in self-sustaining employment or will not become a public charge; the board may, in its discretion, grant pardon or parole to aged or disabled persons.
  Date: 2025-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 42-9-42 (GPS's copy of the Code)

- [confirmed] Thompson: mandatory language plus substantive predicates creates liberty interest
  Kentucky Dept. of Corrections v. Thompson holds that the use of 'explicitly mandatory language,' in connection with the establishment of 'specified substantive predicates' to limit discretion, forces a conclusion that the State has created a liberty interest.
  Date: 1989-01-01
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: Kentucky Department of Corrections v. Thompson, Supreme Court of the United States, 1989-05-15 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] O.C.G.A. § 42-9-45(f): violent-crime parole barred until 7 years or one-third of term served
  O.C.G.A. § 42-9-45(f) provides that, with exceptions, 'no inmate serving a sentence imposed for any of the crimes listed in this subsection shall be granted release on parole until and unless said inmate has served on good behavior seven years of imprisonment or one-third of the prison term imposed by the sentencing court for the violent crime, whichsoever first occurs,' and that 'No inmate serving a sentence for any crime listed in this subsection shall be released on parole for the purpose of regulating jail or prison populations.'
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 42-9-45 (GPS's copy of the Code)

- [confirmed] Sweeton v. Brown: Michigan system creates no liberty interest in parole
  In Sweeton v. Brown, 27 F.3d 1162 (6th Cir. 1994) (en banc), the Sixth Circuit, noting 'the broad powers of the Michigan authorities to deny parole,' held that the Michigan system does not create a liberty interest in parole.
  Date: 1994-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Steed #170747 v. Harry Doc. 5

- [confirmed] Justice v. State Board: mandamus cannot compel parole because Board's power is discretionary
  The Supreme Court of Georgia held that mandamus will not lie to compel the Board of Pardons and Paroles to grant parole, because the Board's exercise of its parole powers is discretionary, and it would be error for a trial court to require the parole board, by mandamus or otherwise, to grant a petitioner parole.
  Date: 1975-06-24
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Justice v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1975-06-24 (court record via CourtListener)

- [reported] Michigan Court Rule 7.118(B): no appeal of right from parole board decision
  Michigan Court Rule 7.118(B) states there is no appeal of right from a decision of the Michigan parole board.
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: <h2>Rule 7.118 Appeals from the Michigan Parole Board</h2>

- [confirmed] Sultenfuss reading of O.C.G.A. § 42-9-42(c) as presumption against parole
  The Sultenfuss majority read O.C.G.A. § 42-9-42(c), providing that no inmate shall be placed on parole unless the Board finds a reasonable probability of law-abiding conduct and compatibility with welfare of the inmate and society, as creating a presumption against parole that qualifies the guidelines-system statute, § 42-9-40, rather than mandating release when guideline criteria are met.
  Date: 1994-10-05
  Tags: parole,legal,legislation
  Sources: Stephen Sultenfuss, Charles McMulling v. Wayne Snow, Jr., James T. Morris, Mobley Howell, Michael... – CourtListener.com

- [confirmed] O.C.G.A. § 42-9-42(c) creates presumption against parole
  The en banc court characterized O.C.G.A. § 42-9-42(c) as creating a presumption against parole rather than a presumption in favor of release. The statute provides that no inmate shall be placed on parole until and unless the board finds a reasonable probability that the inmate will live and conduct himself as a respectable and law-abiding person and that release is compatible with his own welfare and the welfare of society.
  Date: 1994-10-05
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Stephen Sultenfuss, Charles McMulling v. Wayne Snow, Jr., James T. Morris, Mobley Howell, Michael... – CourtListener.com

- [confirmed] Mandamus inappropriate to challenge conviction; habeas is exclusive remedy
  In Daker v. Ray, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that mandamus was inappropriate to challenge the validity of a conviction and sentence because the exclusive remedy under those circumstances is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
  Date: 2002-04-29
  Tags: legal
  Sources: Daker v. Ray, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2002-04-29 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Nebraska parole-release statute: 'shall order release unless'
  Nebraska's current parole-release statute provides that '[w]henever the board considers the release of a committed offender who is eligible for release on parole, it shall order his or her release unless it is of the opinion that his or her release should be deferred because: (a) There is a substantial risk that he or she will not conform to the conditions of parole; or (b) Subject to subsection (3) of this section, his or her continued correctional treatment, medical care, or vocational or other training in the facility will substantially enhance his or her capacity to lead a law-abiding life when released at a later date.'
  Date: 2024-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: 83-1,114. (nebraskalegislature.gov)

- [reported] Eighth Circuit in Sera v. Zimmerman (2026) followed Greenholtz on Arkansas parole statute
  In Steven Sera v. Randy Zimmerman (8th Cir., 2026-08-27), the court followed Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 11, quoting the 'will be obtained' language and addressing the Arkansas parole statute.
  Date: 2026-08-27
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Steven Sera v. Randy Zimmerman, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 2026-08-27 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Charron: Board may consider parole before statutory minimum if § 42-9-46 notice given
  In Charron, the Georgia Supreme Court held that the board can consider an inmate for parole before service of the minimum times specified in § 42-9-45 (b), so long as the notice required by § 42-9-46 is given, and concluded there is no unconstitutional infringement on the powers of the board. Quoted text: 'However, interpreting these provisions as meaning that the board can consider an inmate for parole before service of the minimum times specified in § 42-9-45 (b), so long as the notice required by § 42-9-46 is given, we conclude that there is no unconstitutional infringement on the powers of the board.'
  Date: 1984-09-06
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Charron v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1984-09-06 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Acoli: Parole Board discretion not unlimited or absolute
  The Supreme Court of New Jersey stated that the discretionary power of the Parole Board is not unlimited or absolute, and that when a parole decision is so far wide of the mark or so manifestly mistaken under the governing statutory standard, intervention is required in the interests of justice.
  Date: 2022-05-10
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Sundiata Acoli v. New Jersey State Parole Board (083980) (Statewide), 2022-05-10 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Ray v. Barber: OCGA § 42-12-8 requires discretionary appeal in all prisoner-filed actions
  The Supreme Court of Georgia held that OCGA § 42-12-8 requires that appeals of all actions filed by prisoners, including a prisoner's mandamus action against the Board of Pardons and Paroles, be taken by discretionary application under OCGA § 5-6-35, even where the appellant is the non-prisoner Board.
  Date: 2001-06-04
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Ray v. Barber, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2001-06-04 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Ray v. Carthen: tentative parole month is only a recommendation
  In Ray v. Carthen, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that the ultimate grant or denial of parole to a prisoner who is eligible under the guidelines remains a discretionary matter for the Board, and the tentative parole month set by the Parole Decision Guidelines System serves only as a recommendation to the Board.
  Date: 2002-09-16
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Ray v. Carthen, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2002-09-16 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Jago: mutually explicit understandings doctrine limited to property interests
  The Court held that the "mutually explicit understandings" doctrine of Perry v. Sindermann has a far more useful place in determining protected property interests than in determining those liberty interests protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: A. R. JAGO, Former Superintendent, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, et al. v. George D. VAN CUREN. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

- [confirmed] Garner and Morales did not overrule Sultenfuss liberty-interest test
  In Porter v. Ray, the Eleventh Circuit rejected appellants' argument that Garner v. Jones, 529 U.S. 244 (2000), and California Department of Corrections v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499 (1995), overruled the Sultenfuss test for determining whether a parole liberty interest exists. The court noted Garner cited Sultenfuss favorably and that it has consistently applied Sultenfuss even after Garner and Morales.
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Nathaniel Porter, Jr. v. Walter S. Ray, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, 2006-06-21 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Swarthout: federal right at issue is procedural
  Swarthout v. Cooke holds that because the only federal right at issue is procedural, the relevant inquiry is what process Cooke and Clay received, not whether the state court decided the case correctly.
  Date: 2011-01-24
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Swarthout v. Cooke, Supreme Court of the United States, 2011-01-24 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Hamm v. Ray followed Johnson v. Griffin
  In Hamm v. Ray, the Supreme Court of Georgia followed Johnson v. Griffin, 271 Ga. 663, 522 S.E.2d 657 (1999).
  Date: 2000-05-30
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Hamm v. Ray, 2000-05-30 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Woodard five-justice split (Jennings, Fla.)
  Jennings v. State (Fla.) explained Ohio Adult Parole Auth. v. Woodard, 523 U.S. 272 (1998), noting that 'five justices of the United States Supreme' Court addressed the issue in that case.
  Date: 2025-11-06
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Bryan Fredrick Jennings v. State of Florida & Bryan Fredrick Jennings v. State of Florida & Bryan Fredrick Jennings v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, Supreme Court of Florida, 2025-11-06 (court record via CourtListener)

- [reported] Proposed bill: written findings of fact for parole denial or delay
  A proposed new Georgia Code section would require written findings of fact that provide the basis for the board's decision to deny parole or delay an offender's tentative parole release month.
  Tags: parole,legislation,legal
  Sources: 25 LC 48 1390

- [confirmed] Smith v. Snow: Board's commutation power is completely discretionary
  The Eleventh Circuit in Smith v. Snow (1983) held that because the Georgia Parole Board's power to commute penalties is completely discretionary under Justice v. State Board of Pardons and Paroles, 234 Ga. 749, 218 S.E.2d 45, 46 (1975), Dumschat controls and requires rejection of Smith's due process claim.
  Date: 1983-12-14
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Smith v. Snow, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 1983-12-14 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Georgia AG: former recidivist statute renders defendant ineligible for parole in the first instance
  The Georgia Attorney General's office stated that the former recidivist statute O.C.G.A. § 17-10-7(b), like O.C.G.A. § 17-10-16, was enacted prior to the Sentence Reform Act of 1994 and is the type of statute the Supreme Court of Georgia has held does not impinge on the authority of the Board but renders the defendant ineligible for parole in the first instance.
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: 97-10 | Office of the Attorney General

- [reported] Ninth Circuit followed Olim v. Wakinekona on process not being an end in itself
  In Dudley v. Boise State University (9th Cir., 2025-08-27), the court followed Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 250 (1983), quoting that 'Process is not an end in itself.'
  Date: 2025-08-27
  Tags: legal
  Sources: Dudley v. Boise State University, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2025-08-27 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Two-thirds roll-call vote required for mandatory minimum and full-sentence laws for enumerated violent offenses
  The Georgia Constitution allows the General Assembly, by general law approved by two-thirds of the members elected to each branch in a roll-call vote, to provide for minimum mandatory sentences and sentences required to be served in their entirety for persons convicted of armed robbery, kidnapping, rape, aggravated child molestation, aggravated sodomy, or aggravated sexual battery.
  Tags: legal,policy,parole
  Sources: sos.ga.gov: Georgia Constitution

- [reported] Mandamus, not habeas, proper vehicle for parole claims (Wilson v. Hickman)
  In Wilson v. Hickman (N.D. Ga. 2000), the district court stated that the petitioner should have filed an application for a writ of mandamus before the state court, rather than a habeas petition.
  Date: 2000-02-16
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Wilson v. Hickman, District Court, N.D. Georgia, 2000-02-16 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] O.C.G.A. § 9-6-21: Mandamus unavailable absent gross abuse of discretion
  O.C.G.A. § 9-6-21(a) provides that mandamus shall not lie as a private remedy between individuals to enforce private rights nor to a public officer who has an absolute discretion to act or not to act unless there is a gross abuse of such discretion. Its history line lists Code 1933, § 64-102, the section Justice v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles cited, and traces it to the Original Code of 1863.
  Tags: legal,parole,policy
  Sources: Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 9-6-21 (GPS's copy of the Code)

- [confirmed] Rosenkrantz: Governor's parole decision under article V, section 8(b) reviewed only for 'some evidence'
  On habeas review of the Governor's reversal of a parole grant, the Supreme Court of California held that a Governor's parole decision under article V, section 8(b) is subject to limited judicial review only for whether it is supported by 'some evidence.'
  Date: 2002-12-16
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: In Re Rosenkrantz, 2002-12-16 (court record via CourtListener)

- [reported] Rosenkrantz standard described as 'extremely deferential'
  In re Van Houten (Cal. Ct. App. 2023) followed In re Rosenkrantz (2002) 29 Cal.4th, which described the standard of review as 'extremely deferential.'
  Date: 2023-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: In re Van Houten, California Court of Appeal, 2023-05-30 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Sandin holding: segregated confinement not atypical, significant deprivation
  The Supreme Court in Sandin held that Conner's discipline in segregated confinement did not present the type of atypical, significant deprivation in which a State might conceivably create a liberty interest.
  Date: 1995-06-19
  Tags: legal,solitary
  Sources: Sandin v. Conner, Supreme Court of the United States, 1995-06-19 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Williamson: Chapters 706 and 353 do not bar minimum equal to maximum
  In Williamson v. Hawai'i Paroling Authority, the Supreme Court of Hawai'i held that neither Chapter 706 nor Chapter 353 of the Hawai'i Revised Statutes prohibit the Hawai'i Paroling Authority from setting a prisoner's minimum term at a period equal to his or her maximum sentence.
  Date: 2001-11-29
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: Williamson v. Hawai'i Paroling Authority, 2001-11-29 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] O.C.G.A. § 42-9-42(a) majority vote requirement for clemency
  O.C.G.A. § 42-9-42(a) provides that no person shall be granted clemency, pardon, parole, or other relief from sentence except by a majority vote of the board.
  Date: 2025-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 42-9-42 (GPS's copy of the Code)

- [confirmed] Thompson: Board of Pardons v. Allen statute used mandatory 'shall' language
  Thompson states that in Board of Pardons v. Allen the relevant statute used mandatory language ('shall') to create a presumption that parole release will be granted when the designated findings are made, quoting Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates.
  Date: 1989-01-01
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: Kentucky Department of Corrections v. Thompson, Supreme Court of the United States, 1989-05-15 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] O.C.G.A. § 42-9-45(f): 'patent miscarriage of justice' exception to violent-crime parole bar
  O.C.G.A. § 42-9-45(f) provides: 'Except to correct a patent miscarriage of justice and not otherwise, no inmate serving a sentence imposed for any of the crimes listed in this subsection shall be granted release on parole until and unless said inmate has served on good behavior seven years of imprisonment or one-third of the prison term imposed by the sentencing court for the violent crime, whichsoever first occurs.'
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 42-9-45 (GPS's copy of the Code)

- [confirmed] Crump v. Lafler: adoption of parole guidelines does not create liberty interest
  The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan held, citing Sixth Circuit precedent, that the Michigan system does not create a liberty interest in parole, and that the adoption of specific parole guidelines since Sweeton does not lead to a different conclusion (Crump v. Lafler, 657 F.3d 393, 404 (6th Cir. 2011)).
  Date: 2011-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Steed #170747 v. Harry Doc. 5

- [confirmed] Justice v. State Board: parole-denial petition states no habeas claim; mandamus fails
  A prisoner complaining of parole denial (not of his conviction or a revocation) states no claim for habeas corpus; treated as mandamus, the petition fails because the Board's parole power is discretionary, so the trial court could not require the Board by mandamus or otherwise to grant parole, and dismissal before proof was not error.
  Date: 1975-06-24
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Justice v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1975-06-24 (court record via CourtListener)

- [reported] Michigan Rule 7.118: only prosecutor or victim may seek leave to appeal parole decision
  Michigan's parole-board appeal rule provides that only the prosecutor or a crime victim may file an application for leave to appeal a parole board decision, with the prisoner as the appellee.
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: <h2>Rule 7.118 Appeals from the Michigan Parole Board</h2>

- [confirmed] U.S. Supreme Court affirms Ninth Circuit in Allen
  Applying Greenholtz, the Court held that Montana's parole statute, through its mandatory 'shall release' language creating a presumption of release when the designated findings are made, gives inmates a liberty interest in parole release protected by the Due Process Clause, even though the Board's discretion is very broad. The Ninth Circuit was affirmed.
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: BOARD OF PARDONS and Henry Burgess, Petitioners v. George ALLEN and Dale Jacobsen etc. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

- [confirmed] Sultenfuss distinguishes Board of Pardons v. Allen Montana statute
  The en banc majority distinguished Board of Pardons v. Allen by noting that the Montana statute at issue there used mandatory language creating a presumption that release would be granted when designated findings were made, whereas Georgia's statute does not mandate an outcome.
  Date: 1987-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Stephen Sultenfuss, Charles McMulling v. Wayne Snow, Jr., James T. Morris, Mobley Howell, Michael... – CourtListener.com

- [confirmed] Board's constitutional power to make parole decisions is discretionary (citing Justice v. State Board)
  In Daker v. Ray, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that the Board's constitutional power to make parole decisions is discretionary, citing Justice v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles, 234 Ga. 749, 751 (2) (218 SE2d 45) (1975).
  Date: 2002-04-29
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Daker v. Ray, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2002-04-29 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Nebraska parole-deferment statute legislative history
  Nebraska's parole-deferment statute's source line shows it derives from Laws 1969, c. 817, section 45, and was amended by Laws 2006, LB 1113, section 51; Laws 2018, LB841, section 43; Laws 2023, LB50, section 51; and Laws 2024, LB631, section 35.
  Tags: parole,legal,legislation
  Sources: 83-1,114. (nebraskalegislature.gov)

- [confirmed] 1943 Act: parole only if reasonable probability of law-abiding conduct
  Ga. L. 1943, p. 185, § 13 (the original Act creating the State Board of Pardons and Paroles) provided: 'No prisoner shall be released on probation or placed on parole until and unless the Board shall find that there is reasonable probability that, if he is so released, he will live and conduct himself as a respectable and law-abiding person, and that his release will be compatible with his own welfare and the welfare of society.'
  Date: 1943-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal,legislation
  Sources: Ga. L. 1943, p. 185 (Acts and resolutions of the General Assembly of the state of Georgia 1943 [volume 1])

- [confirmed] Charron: independent Board envisioned, but notice statute limits no substantive power
  The Supreme Court of Georgia stated that while an independent Board of Pardons and Paroles is envisioned under the state constitution, the statutory notice-to-prosecutor requirement places no limitations on the substantive power of the Board but merely requires that notice be given to vitally interested authorities before that power is exercised. Quoted text: 'We do not disagree with the superior court that an independent Board of Pardons and Paroles is envisioned under our State Constitution. However, § 42-9-46 places no limitations on the substantive power of the board. It merely provides that before that power is exercised, notice to vitally interested authorities be given.'
  Date: 1984-09-06
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Charron v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1984-09-06 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Acoli: 1979 Parole Act shifted burden to State, created protected expectation
  The Supreme Court of New Jersey stated that the 1979 Parole Act shifted the burden to the State to prove that the prisoner should not be released, and that it creates a protected expectation of parole in inmates who are eligible for parole; the objective of the Act was to reduce the discretionary authority of the Board.
  Date: 2022-05-10
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Sundiata Acoli v. New Jersey State Parole Board (083980) (Statewide), 2022-05-10 (court record via CourtListener)

- [reported] New York Appellate Division holds no protected liberty interest in clemency review process
  In Matter of Brown v. New York State DOCCS, Exec. Clemency Bur. (2025), the Appellate Division, following Connecticut Bd. of Pardons v Dumschat, 452 US 458, 464 (1981), held that the petitioner "has no constitutional or inherent right to commutation of his sentence" and "hence, he has no protected liberty interest in the manner in which his clemency application is reviewed or processed" (see id. at 463-467).
  Date: 2025-06-26
  Tags: legal,parole,policy
  Sources: Matter of Brown v. New York State DOCCS, Exec. Clemency Bur., Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, 2025-06-26 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Mandamus unavailable where duty involves discretion
  In Ray v. Carthen, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that mandamus is an appropriate remedy only where the petitioner can show a clear legal duty which must be performed, and where a duty involves judgment or discretion on the part of the actor, mandamus is not an appropriate remedy.
  Date: 2002-09-16
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Ray v. Carthen, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2002-09-16 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Jago: flexibility of parole authorities precludes contract-style liberty interests
  The Court stated that it would severely restrict the necessary flexibility of prison administrators and parole authorities were it to hold that any one of their decisions with respect to individual inmates may give rise to protected "liberty" interests as under the general law of contracts.
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: A. R. JAGO, Former Superintendent, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, et al. v. George D. VAN CUREN. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

- [confirmed] Appellants sought Sandin 'real concerns' liberty-interest standard in Porter v. Ray
  The appellants in Porter v. Ray argued the court should analyze their liberty interest under the 'real concerns undergirding the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause' standard drawn from Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483 n.5 (1995), rather than applying Sultenfuss.
  Date: 2006-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Nathaniel Porter, Jr. v. Walter S. Ray, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, 2006-06-21 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Swarthout: process received met Greenholtz requirements
  Swarthout v. Cooke states that Cooke and Clay received at least the process Greenholtz requires: they were allowed to speak at their parole hearings and to contest the evidence against them, were afforded access to their records in advance, and were notified as to the reasons why parole was denied.
  Date: 2011-01-24
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Swarthout v. Cooke, Supreme Court of the United States, 2011-01-24 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] OCGA § 42-9-40(a) requires parole guidelines system
  OCGA § 42-9-40(a) states that the Board shall adopt, implement, and maintain a parole guidelines system for determining parole action, and the guidelines system shall be used in determining parole actions on all inmates, except those serving life sentences, who will become statutorily eligible for parole consideration.
  Date: 2020-09-10
  Tags: legal,parole,policy
  Sources: Day v. Bernard, No. A20A1019 (Ga. Ct. App. 2020)

- [confirmed] Hamm v. Ray followed Riley v. Garrett
  In Hamm v. Ray, the Supreme Court of Georgia followed Riley v. Garrett, 219 Ga. 345, 348(2), 133 S.E.2d 367 (1963).
  Date: 2000-05-30
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Hamm v. Ray, 2000-05-30 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Greenholtz due process sufficiency (Jones, Or. App.)
  Jones v. Board of Parole (Or. Ct. App.) followed Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, stating: 'That is constitutionally sufficient due process. Greenholtz v.'
  Date: 2026-06-10
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Jones v. Board of Parole, Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2026-06-10 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Robert Earl Howard v. Coonrod applies Swarthout v. Cooke standard
  The Eleventh Circuit in Robert Earl Howard v. Melinda N. Coonrod (2025) explained that Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 220 (2011), supplies the proper standard for evaluating the parole-related claim.
  Date: 2025-04-15
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Robert Earl Howard v. Melinda N. Coonrod – CourtListener.com

- [confirmed] Georgia Supreme Court: courts lack authority to limit parole eligibility; Board constitutionally vested
  In a footnote in State v. Riggs, the Supreme Court of Georgia stated that nothing in its opinion should be read as providing a trial court with authority to limit eligibility for paroles, because the State Board of Pardons and Paroles is constitutionally vested with the power to grant parole and other relief from sentences.
  Date: 2017-05-01
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: State v. Riggs, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2017-05-01 (court record via CourtListener)

- [reported] Second Circuit followed Wilkinson v. Austin on liberty interest in avoiding restrictive confinement
  In Vidal v. Venettozzi (2d Cir., 2026-04-01), the court followed Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 222 (2005), which recognized '[A] liberty interest in avoiding restrictive confinement.'
  Date: 2026-04-01
  Tags: legal,solitary
  Sources: Vidal v. Venettozzi, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2026-04-01 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] 1993 life-without-parole statute barred parole for natural life absent innocence determination
  The Act creating life without parole provided that a person sentenced to imprisonment for life without parole 'shall not be eligible for any form of parole during such person's natural life unless the State Board of Pardons and Paroles or a court of this state shall, after notice and public hearing, determine that such person was innocent of the offense for which the sentence of imprisonment for life without parole was imposed.'
  Date: 1993-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Ga. L. 1993, p. 1656 (Acts and resolutions of the General Assembly of the state of Georgia 1993 [volume 1])

- [reported] Separation of powers bars court-imposed parole conditions (Terry v. Hamrick)
  Rooney v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2011) cited Terry v. Hamrick, 284 Ga. 24, 25 (2), 663 S.E.2d 256 (2008), holding that because the Board of Pardons and Paroles has executive power regarding the terms and conditions of parole, a trial court violated the constitutional separation-of-powers provision when it banished a defendant from every county in Georgia except one as a condition of parole and probation.
  Date: 2011-08-09
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Rooney v. State, Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2011-08-09 (court record via CourtListener)

- [reported] Shook v. State: Banishment upheld where related to rehabilitative scheme
  Shook v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2009) followed Terry v. Hamrick, 284 Ga. at 26-27 (3), upholding banishment from all but one county in the state where not unreasonably related to the rehabilitative scheme of the sentence.
  Date: 2009-09-10
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: Shook v. State, Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2009-09-10 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Lawrence: 'some evidence' standard asks whether evidence supports conclusion inmate is currently dangerous
  The California Supreme Court concluded that because the core statutory determination entrusted to the Board and the Governor is whether the inmate poses a current threat to public safety, the standard of review properly is characterized as whether 'some evidence' supports the conclusion that the inmate is unsuitable for parole because he or she currently is dangerous.
  Date: 2008-08-21
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: In re Lawrence, 2008-08-21 (court record via CourtListener)

- [reported] Armstrong v. Superior Court applied Rosenkrantz to due process challenge
  Armstrong v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. 2026) explained In re Rosenkrantz (2002) 29 Cal.4th 616, 664 in the context of a due process challenge involving the Governor's parole review.
  Date: 2026-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Armstrong v. Super. Ct., California Court of Appeal, 2026-03-27 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Sandin: Hewitt made explicit what was implicit in Greenholtz
  Sandin describes Hewitt v. Helms as having made explicit what was implicit in Greenholtz: the Court asked whether the State had gone beyond issuing mere procedural guidelines and had used language of an unmistakably mandatory character such that the incursion on liberty would not occur absent specified substantive predicates.
  Date: 1995-06-19
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: Sandin v. Conner, Supreme Court of the United States, 1995-06-19 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] O.C.G.A. § 42-9-42(d)(2) parole supervision fee
  O.C.G.A. § 42-9-42(d)(2) provides that the board may require the payment of a parole supervision fee of at least $10.00 per month as a condition of parole or conditional release.
  Date: 2025-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 42-9-42 (GPS's copy of the Code)

- [confirmed] Thompson two-step procedural due process framework
  Thompson states that due process questions are examined in two steps: first whether there exists a liberty or property interest which has been interfered with by the State, and second whether the procedures attendant upon that deprivation were constitutionally sufficient.
  Date: 1989-01-01
  Tags: legal
  Sources: Kentucky Department of Corrections v. Thompson, Supreme Court of the United States, 1989-05-15 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] O.C.G.A. § 42-9-45(b)(2): felony parole eligibility after 9 months or one-third, whichever greater
  O.C.G.A. § 42-9-45(b)(2) provides that, except as otherwise provided, 'an inmate serving a felony sentence or felony sentences shall only be eligible for consideration for parole after the expiration of nine months of his or her sentence or one-third of the time of the sentences, whichever is greater,' and that inmates serving sentences aggregating 21 years or more become eligible 'upon completion of the service of seven years.'
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 42-9-45 (GPS's copy of the Code)

- [confirmed] McBrayer: parole grant not automatic abuse of discretion despite substantial and compelling reasons to deny
  The Michigan Supreme Court held in In re Parole of Richard Allen McBrayer (2023) that even when there are substantial and compelling reasons to deny parole, a grant of parole to a prisoner with a high-probability-of-parole guidelines score is not an automatic abuse of discretion, and a reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Parole Board.
  Date: 2023-07-24
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: In Re Parole of Richard Allen McBrayer, 2023-07-24 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] OCGA § 50-13-2 excludes Parole Board from APA 'agency' definition
  The O.C.G.A. definition of 'agency' for purposes of the Georgia Administrative Procedure Act expressly excludes the State Board of Pardons and Paroles.
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 50-13-2 (GPS's copy of the Code)

- [reported] 2018 Michigan act: 'There is no entitlement to parole'
  The 2018 Michigan enrolled act that added the 'substantial and compelling objective reasons' guideline-departure standard also enacted, in the same bill, the statement that 'There is no entitlement to parole' in Michigan.
  Date: 2018-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal,legislation
  Sources: Act No. 339, 2018 PA 0339 [2]

- [confirmed] Montana 1989 amendment changed 'shall' to 'may'
  The Montana Board of Pardons and Parole's own history states that the 1989 Legislature amended the parole statute, changing the word 'shall' to 'may,' effective March 20, 1989, and that this eliminated the 'liberty interest' in parole for crimes committed after that date, citing Board of Pardons and Parole v. Allen.
  Date: 1989-03-20
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: bopp.mt.gov: History

- [confirmed] En banc Eleventh Circuit affirms summary judgment for Parole Board
  Sitting en banc after vacating a panel decision, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the Parole Board, holding that Georgia's parole system, viewed as a whole, creates no liberty interest in parole protected by due process because its statutes and rules do not meaningfully limit the Board's discretion.
  Date: 1994-10-05
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Stephen Sultenfuss, Charles McMulling v. Wayne Snow, Jr., James T. Morris, Mobley Howell, Michael... – CourtListener.com

- [confirmed] Statutes do not mandate guidelines control final parole decision; guidelines set initial eligibility only
  In Daker v. Ray, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that nothing in the applicable statutes mandates that the parole guidelines control the final parole decision; the guidelines simply establish an initial date of eligibility for parole, and the ultimate grant or denial of parole to a prisoner eligible under the guidelines remains a discretionary matter for the Board.
  Date: 2002-04-29
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Daker v. Ray, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2002-04-29 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Nebraska statute retains Greenholtz 'shall order release unless' structure
  Nebraska's parole-deferral statute as currently published keeps the 'shall order his or her release unless' structure that Greenholtz quoted from the earlier text.
  Date: 2024-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: 83-1,114. (nebraskalegislature.gov)

- [confirmed] 1943 Act: parole conditioned on self-sustaining employment or not becoming public charge
  The Act creating the State Board of Pardons and Paroles provided: 'No person shall be released on pardon or placed on parole unless and until the Board is satisfied that he will be suitably employed in self-sustaining employment, or that he will not become a public charge.'
  Date: 1943-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal,legislation
  Sources: Ga. L. 1943, p. 185 (Acts and resolutions of the General Assembly of the state of Georgia 1943 [volume 1])

- [confirmed] Nebraska's 1976 parole statute as quoted by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Byrne
  Quoting Greenholtz, the New Jersey Supreme Court in Byrne set out the Nebraska Parole Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 83-1,114(1) (1976): the Board 'shall order his release unless it is of the opinion that his release should be deferred because: (a) There is a substantial risk that he will not conform to the conditions of parole; (b) His release would depreciate the seriousness of his crime or promote disrespect for law; (c) His release would have a substantially adverse effect on institutional discipline; or (d) His continued correctional treatment, medical care, or vocational or other training in the facility will substantially enhance his capacity to lead a law-abiding life when released at a later date.'
  Date: 1976-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal,legislation
  Sources: New Jersey State Parole Board v. Byrne, 1983-05-11 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Charron: Supreme Court reversed superior court, upheld parole minimum-time and notice statutes
  The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed a superior court ruling and held that the statutes setting a minimum time served before parole eligibility and requiring notice to the sentencing judge and district attorney before early parole consideration do not unconstitutionally infringe on the powers of the Board of Pardons and Paroles. Quoted text: 'interpreting these provisions as meaning that the board can consider an inmate for parole before service of the minimum times specified in § 42-9-45 (b), so long as the notice required by § 42-9-46 is given, we conclude that there is no unconstitutional infringement on the powers of the board.'
  Date: 1984-09-06
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Charron v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1984-09-06 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] 1979 Parole Act release standard quoted in Acoli
  The Parole Act of 1979 provided that an inmate 'shall be released on parole at the time of parole eligibility, unless [it is shown] by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a substantial likelihood that the inmate will commit a crime . . . if released on parole at such time.'
  Date: 1979-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Sundiata Acoli v. New Jersey State Parole Board (083980) (Statewide), 2022-05-10 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] 1943 ballot title: Amendment stripped Governor's pardon power, created State Board of Pardons and Paroles
  The ballot title for the August 1943 Georgia constitutional amendment read: 'FOR ratification of Amendment to Article 5, Section 1, Paragraph 12, of the Constitution of Georgia, so as to take from the Governor all power to grant reprieves, pardons, commute penalties, remove disabilities, remit or suspend sentences, except as to suspension of death and treason sentences; and to provide for a State Board of Pardon and Paroles; and for other purposes.'
  Date: 1943-08-01
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Georgia Amendment 3, Board of Pardons and Paroles Measure (August 1943) - Ballotpedia

- [reported] Conclusory allegation of false information by parole board does not state due process claim
  In Drogheo v. Fieno (W.D.N.Y. 2011), the court followed Jones v. Ray, 279 F.3d 944, 946 (11th Cir. 2001), for the proposition that a prisoner does not state a due process claim simply by making a conclusory allegation regarding the use of false information by a parole board.
  Date: 2011-05-19
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: Drogheo v. FIENO, District Court, W.D. New York, 2011-05-19 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Parole timing is within Board discretion; mandamus inappropriate
  In Ray v. Carthen, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that the decision of when to consider an inmate for parole was well within the discretion permitted to the Board, and mandamus was therefore inappropriate.
  Date: 2002-09-16
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Ray v. Carthen, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2002-09-16 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Jago: grievous loss alone insufficient for due process
  The Court acknowledged that respondent suffered "grievous loss" upon the Ohio Adult Parole Authority's rescission of his parole, but reaffirmed that it has previously rejected the notion that any grievous loss visited upon a person by the State is sufficient to invoke the procedural protections of the Due Process Clause.
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: A. R. JAGO, Former Superintendent, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, et al. v. George D. VAN CUREN. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

- [confirmed] No due process violation even assuming de facto 90% parole policy
  In Porter v. Ray, the Eleventh Circuit held that because Georgia's parole system does not create a legitimate expectation of parole, the appellants could not establish a due process violation, even assuming the Board applied a de facto 90% policy.
  Date: 2006-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Nathaniel Porter, Jr. v. Walter S. Ray, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, 2006-06-21 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Swarthout: two-step due process analysis
  Swarthout v. Cooke states that standard due process analysis proceeds in two steps: first asking whether there exists a liberty or property interest of which a person has been deprived, and if so asking whether the procedures followed by the State were constitutionally sufficient, citing Kentucky Department of Corrections v. Thompson.
  Date: 2011-01-24
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Swarthout v. Cooke, Supreme Court of the United States, 2011-01-24 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Mandamus standard for parole decisions
  Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy to compel a public officer to perform a required duty, and trial courts will grant mandamus only when there is a clear legal right to the relief sought or there is a gross abuse of discretion; the decision of whether to grant parole lies within the discretion of the Board.
  Date: 2020-09-10
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: Day v. Bernard, No. A20A1019 (Ga. Ct. App. 2020)

- [confirmed] Parole officer lacked authority to condition parole on sex-offender instructions
  Because only the Board of Pardons and Paroles may impose parole conditions, a parole officer had no authority to condition continued parole on sex-offender instructions, and the parolee was entitled to mandamus compelling their removal.
  Date: 2000-05-30
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Hamm v. Ray, 2000-05-30 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] New York discretionary parole standard (Barna v. Travis)
  Barna v. Travis quotes N.Y. Executive Law § 259-i(2)(c)(A): discretionary release on parole 'shall not be granted merely as a reward for good conduct or efficient performance of duties while confined but after considering if there is a reasonable probability that, if such inmate is released, he will live and remain at liberty without violating the law, and that his release is not incompatible with the welfare of society and will not so deprecate the seriousness of his crime as to undermine respect for law.'
  Date: 2001-02-02
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Barna v. Travis, U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, 2001-02-02 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Hammond v. Hall: Charron construed § 42-9-45(b) as precatory
  The Eleventh Circuit in Hammond v. Hall (2009) explained that in Charron v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles, 253 Ga. 274, 319 S.E.2d 453 (1984), the Georgia Supreme Court construed O.C.G.A. § 42-9-45(b) as precatory rather than mandatory, thus avoiding its invalidation on state constitutional grounds.
  Date: 2009-11-04
  Tags: parole,legal,legislation
  Sources: Hammond v. Hall, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 2009-11-04 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Georgia Supreme Court: Board constitutionally vested with discretionary parole power
  The Supreme Court of Georgia stated in Bradshaw v. State that in Georgia it is the Board of Pardons and Paroles that is constitutionally vested with the power to grant parole, and the power to make parole decisions is discretionary.
  Date: 2008-11-25
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Bradshaw v. State, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2008-11-25 (court record via CourtListener)

- [reported] Fourth Circuit followed Wilkinson v. Austin on liberty interests from state policies
  In Omari Mason v. Kevin Talley (4th Cir., 2026-09-28), the court followed Wilkinson v. Austin, quoting that 'conditions of confinement may arise from state policies or regulations.'
  Date: 2026-09-28
  Tags: legal,conditions
  Sources: Omari Mason v. Kevin Talley, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2026-09-28 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] 1993 Act created three sentencing options for death-eligible offenses
  The Act creating life without parole provided that 'a person who is convicted of an offense committed after the effective date of this Code section for which the death penalty may be imposed under the laws of this state may be sentenced to death, imprisonment for life without parole, or life imprisonment as provided in Article 2 of this chapter.'
  Date: 1993-01-01
  Tags: legal,policy
  Sources: Ga. L. 1993, p. 1656 (Acts and resolutions of the General Assembly of the state of Georgia 1993 [volume 1])

- [reported] PLRA appeal-by-application rule limited to actions originally filed by prisoners (State of Georgia v. Federal Defender Program)
  In State of Georgia v. Federal Defender Program, Inc., No. S26A0364 (Ga. 2026), the Supreme Court of Georgia explained that while Ray v. Barber, 273 Ga. 856 (2001), held the PLRA requires even non-prisoners to appeal by application, the Court later clarified that this rule applies 'when a non-prisoner files an appeal of an action originally filed by a prisoner.'
  Date: 2026-06-02
  Tags: legal,policy
  Sources: STATE OF GEORGIA v. FEDERAL DEFENDER PROGRAM, INC., Supreme Court of Georgia, 2026-06-02 (court record via CourtListener)

- [reported] Denson v. State: O.C.G.A. § 42-1-13 enforcement does not increase punishment
  Denson v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2004) followed Hamm v. Ray, 272 Ga. 659 (1) (531 SE2d 91) (2000). Denson contended that enforcement of O.C.G.A. § 42-1-13 against him would deprive him of substantial rights and increase his punishment; the court disagreed.
  Date: 2004-05-20
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: Denson v. State, Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2004-05-20 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Lawrence: assumption that egregious offense always supplies 'some evidence' conflicts with due process liberty interest
  The California Supreme Court in In re Lawrence described the assumption that a particularly egregious commitment offense always will provide the requisite modicum of evidence as inconsistent with the inmate's due process liberty interest in parole that the court recognized in Rosenkrantz.
  Date: 2008-08-21
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: In re Lawrence, 2008-08-21 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Sandin: states may create protected liberty interests, citing Board of Pardons v. Allen
  Sandin states that following Wolff, the Court recognizes that States may under certain circumstances create liberty interests which are protected by the Due Process Clause, citing Board of Pardons v. Allen.
  Date: 1995-06-19
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: Sandin v. Conner, Supreme Court of the United States, 1995-06-19 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Sandin: no protected liberty interest in Hawaii prison regulation
  The Court held that neither the Hawaii prison regulation nor the Due Process Clause itself afforded Conner a protected liberty interest that would entitle him to the procedural protections set forth in Wolff.
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: Cinda SANDIN, Unit Team Manager, Halawa Correctional Facility, Petitioner, v. Demont R.D. CONNER et al. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

- [confirmed] O.C.G.A. § 42-9-42 2025 amendment on substances
  The 2025 amendment to O.C.G.A. § 42-9-42, effective July 1, 2025, substituted 'of substances' for 'in cocaine, illegal drugs, marijuana, or methamphetamine' in division (b)(1)(B)(xxix).
  Date: 2025-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal,drugs
  Sources: Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 42-9-42 (GPS's copy of the Code)

- [confirmed] Thompson: Supreme Court has found protected interests in parole and other prison contexts
  Thompson states that the Supreme Court has found that certain regulations granted inmates a protected interest in parole (Board of Pardons v. Allen; Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates), in good-time credits (Wolff v. McDonnell), in freedom from involuntary transfer to a mental hospital (Vitek v. Jones), and in freedom from more restrictive forms of confinement within the prison (Hewitt v. Helms).
  Date: 1989-01-01
  Tags: legal,parole,mental_health,solitary
  Sources: Kentucky Department of Corrections v. Thompson, Supreme Court of the United States, 1989-05-15 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Johnson v. Griffin (1999): parole-eligibility claim not cognizable in habeas corpus
  In Johnson v. Griffin, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that a prisoner's claim that the Parole Board determined he was no longer eligible for parole is not cognizable in a habeas corpus proceeding.
  Date: 1999-10-18
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Johnson v. Griffin, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1999-10-18 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] 2018 amendments to MCL 791.233e apply only to controlling offenses on or after December 12, 2018
  The Michigan Supreme Court stated that effective December 12, 2018, the Legislature amended MCL 791.233e(6) to require that a departure from the guidelines be for substantial and compelling objective reasons, and amended MCL 791.233e(7) to add an exhaustive list of such reasons; those amendments apply only to prisoners whose controlling offense was committed on or after December 12, 2018 (MCL 791.233e(14), as amended by 2022 PA 28).
  Date: 2018-12-12
  Tags: parole,legal,legislation
  Sources: In Re Parole of Richard Allen McBrayer, 2023-07-24 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] OCGA § 50-13-2(1) text: 'agency' excludes State Board of Pardons and Paroles
  O.C.G.A. § 50-13-2(1), defining 'agency' for purposes of the Georgia Administrative Procedure Act, expressly excludes 'the State Board of Pardons and Paroles' from that definition: "'Agency' means each state board, bureau, commission, department, activity, or officer authorized by law expressly to make rules and regulations or to determine contested cases, except the General Assembly; the judiciary; the Governor; the State Board of Pardons and Paroles; the State Financing and Investment Commission..."
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 50-13-2 (GPS's copy of the Code)

- [reported] Michigan Chapter 791: parole release discretionary; only grant appealable, by prosecutor or victim
  The Michigan statute governing parole board jurisdiction states that a prisoner's release on parole is discretionary with the parole board, and that only the grant of parole is appealable, and only by the prosecutor or the victim.
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Chapter 791 (legislature.mi.gov)

- [confirmed] En banc court vacated prior panel decision finding liberty interest
  The en banc Eleventh Circuit vacated a prior panel decision (Sultenfuss v. Snow, 7 F.3d 1543 (11th Cir. 1993)) that had held Georgia's parole system creates a protected liberty interest, and on February 4, 1994 granted rehearing en banc.
  Date: 1994-02-04
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Stephen Sultenfuss, Charles McMulling v. Wayne Snow, Jr., James T. Morris, Mobley Howell, Michael... – CourtListener.com

- [confirmed] Montana Supreme Court: only pre-1989 offenders retain liberty interest
  In McDermott v. McDonald, the Montana Supreme Court stated that the Montana Legislature removed the mandatory 'shall release' language (the language Board of Pardons v. Allen read as creating a liberty interest) in 1989, and that only inmates who committed offenses before the amendment continue to have a federally protected liberty interest in parole.
  Date: 2001-05-17
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: McDermott v. McDonald, 2001-05-17 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Charron suggests substantive legislative limits on Parole Board discretion would be unconstitutional
  In Charron v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles, 253 Ga. 274, 319 S.E.2d 453, 455 (1984), the Georgia Supreme Court held that an independent Board of Pardons and Paroles is envisioned under the State Constitution and suggested that substantive legislative limits on the Board's discretion would be unconstitutional.
  Date: 1984-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Stephen Sultenfuss, Charles McMulling v. Wayne Snow, Jr., James T. Morris, Mobley Howell, Michael... – CourtListener.com

- [confirmed] Daker v. Ray affirmed denial of void-conviction and guidelines-compulsion claims, reversed on timely consideration
  On discretionary appeal from denial of filing of a pro se mandamus/declaratory petition under OCGA § 9-15-2(d), the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed denial as to the void-conviction claim (habeas is the exclusive remedy) and as to the claim to compel parole strictly per the guidelines (the grant of parole is discretionary with the Board), but reversed as to the claim for timely parole consideration, which stated a claim.
  Date: 2002-04-29
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Daker v. Ray, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2002-04-29 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] No constitutional or inherent right to conditional release before sentence expiration
  The Court held that there is no constitutional or inherent right of a convicted person to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence.
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: John B. GREENHOLTZ, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. INMATES OF the NEBRASKA PENAL AND CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX et al. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

- [confirmed] 1943 Act: clemency, pardon, or parole requires majority vote of the Board
  The Act creating the State Board of Pardons and Paroles provided: 'No person shall be treated clemency, pardon or parole or other relief from sentence except by a majority vote of the Board.'
  Date: 1943-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal,legislation
  Sources: Ga. L. 1943, p. 185 (Acts and resolutions of the General Assembly of the state of Georgia 1943 [volume 1])

- [confirmed] New Jersey Supreme Court held 'shall ... unless' parole language creates federally protected liberty interest
  In New Jersey State Parole Board v. Byrne (1983), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the Parole Act's 'shall ... unless' language creates a federally protected liberty interest in parole and parole eligibility for multiple offenders, and that the unexplained prosecutor or judge veto of a full-step eligibility reduction lacked due process. The court read into the statute a requirement of a statement of reasons and an opportunity to respond in writing, and remanded.
  Date: 1983-05-11
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: New Jersey State Parole Board v. Byrne, 1983-05-11 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Georgia Constitution subparagraph (c): General Assembly may bar parole for repeat life-eligible and consecutive-life offenders
  The Supreme Court of Georgia quoted the Georgia Constitution's provision that, notwithstanding the Board's general grant of clemency power, the General Assembly by law may prohibit the Board from granting, and may prescribe the terms and conditions for granting, a pardon or parole to a person incarcerated for a second or subsequent time for an offense for which the person could have been sentenced to life imprisonment, and to a person who received consecutive life sentences from the same series of acts. Quoted text: 'Subparagraph (c) provides, “Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraph (b) of this Paragraph, the General Assembly, by law, may prohibit the Board from granting and may prescribe the terms and conditions for the Board’s granting a pardon or parole to: (1) Any person incarcerated for a second or subsequent time for any offense for which such person could have been sentenced to life imprisonment; and (2) Any person who has received consecutive life sentences as the result of offenses occurring during the same series of acts.”'
  Date: 1983-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Charron v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1984-09-06 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Acoli: lack of substantial credible evidence; parole granted
  The parole-eligible inmate was presumptively entitled to release and the Board bore the burden of showing a substantial likelihood of reoffending; because the record lacked substantial credible evidence for the denial, the Court overturned the Appellate Division and granted parole. (Quote is from the clerk's syllabus in the stored opinion text; the majority body was not reachable.)
  Date: 2022-05-10
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Sundiata Acoli v. New Jersey State Parole Board (083980) (Statewide), 2022-05-10 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Ga. L. 1974, p. 474: Board may grant pardon or parole to aged or disabled persons in its discretion
  An amending Act to the State Board of Pardons and Paroles Act inserted a new sentence into Section 13 providing: 'Provided, however, the Board may, in its discretion, and notwithstanding other provisions of this Act, grant pardon or parole to any aged or disabled persons.'
  Date: 1974-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Ga. L. 1974, p. 474 (Acts and resolutions of the General Assembly of the state of Georgia 1974 [volume 1])

- [confirmed] Wilkinson v. Dotson permits § 1983 challenges to state parole procedures
  Wilkinson v. Dotson (2005) holds that state prisoners' claims challenging Ohio's parole procedures, seeking only new eligibility or suitability review rather than immediate or speedier release, may be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 rather than exclusively through federal habeas corpus. The Court concluded: "We conclude that these actions may be brought under § 1983."
  Date: 2005-03-07
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: Wilkinson v. Dotson, Supreme Court of the United States, 2005-03-07 (court record via CourtListener); WILKINSON, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION, ET AL. v. DOTSON ET AL. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

- [confirmed] 1994 constitutional amendment authorized mandatory minimums and parole restrictions
  The Sentence Reform Act became effective January 1, 1995, after ratification by Georgia voters at the November 1994 general election of an amendment to Art. IV, Sec. II, Par. II of the Georgia Constitution. The amendment authorized the General Assembly to provide for mandatory minimum sentences and to impose restrictions on the authority of the State Board of Pardons and Paroles to grant paroles.
  Tags: parole,legal,legislation,policy
  Sources: Campbell v. State, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1997-05-12 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Swarthout: no federal right to conditional release before sentence expiration
  Swarthout v. Cooke states there is no right under the Federal Constitution to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence, and the States are under no duty to offer parole to their prisoners, citing Greenholtz.
  Date: 2011-01-24
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Swarthout v. Cooke, Supreme Court of the United States, 2011-01-24 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Special parole fee conditions did not violate ex post facto clause
  The Board's imposition of an electronic-monitoring fee and a crime-victims fund payment as special parole conditions did not violate Georgia's ex post facto clause.
  Date: 2000-05-30
  Tags: parole,legal,budget
  Sources: Hamm v. Ray, 2000-05-30 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Colorado statutory presumption of parole
  C.R.S. § 17-22.5-404.5(1) provides 'There shall be a presumption, subject to the final discretion of the parole board, in favor of granting parole to an inmate who has reached his or her parole eligibility date and who' meets enumerated conditions (felony possession/use offense, no specified disciplinary violations, program-compliant, no certain prior felonies, no active felony or immigration detainer).
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: C.R.S. 17-22.5-404.5 – Presumption of parole

- [confirmed] Metheny v. Hammonds explains Charron
  The Eleventh Circuit in Metheny v. Hammonds (2000) explained Charron v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles, 253 Ga. 274, 319 S.E.2d 453 (1984), noting that decision did not disagree with lower courts that an independent Board is contemplated.
  Date: 2000-07-07
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Willis Metheny v. Garfield Hammonds, Jr., Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 2000-07-07 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Bradshaw v. State followed Daker v. Ray on discretionary parole power
  Later treatment: Bradshaw v. State, Supreme Court of Georgia followed Daker v. Ray, Ga.
  Date: 2008-11-25
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Bradshaw v. State, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2008-11-25 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] O.C.G.A. § 42-9-44(a) requires written parole conditions given to parolee
  O.C.G.A. § 42-9-44(a) provided: 'The board, upon placing a person on parole, shall specify in writing the terms and conditions thereof. A certified copy of the conditions shall be given to the parolee.'
  Date: 1995-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Ga. L. 1995, p. 625 (Acts and resolutions of the General Assembly of the state of Georgia 1995 [volume 1])

- [reported] OCGA § 42-12-8 applies to non-prisoner appeals of prisoner-originated actions (Brown v. Crawford)
  In Brown v. Crawford (Ga. 2011), the Supreme Court of Georgia held, following Ray v. Barber, 273 Ga. 856(1), 548 S.E.2d 283 (2001), that OCGA § 42-12-8 applies when a non-prisoner files an appeal of an action originally filed by a prisoner; because neither appellant filed a discretionary appeal application under OCGA § 5-6-35, both appeals were dismissed. A concurring opinion questioned Ray v. Barber, stating 'I agree the case was probably wrongly decided.'
  Date: 2011-09-12
  Tags: legal,policy
  Sources: Brown v. Crawford, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2011-09-12 (court record via CourtListener)

- [reported] Eidson v. State: Ex post facto law characteristics delineated in Hamm v. Ray
  Eidson v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2003) explained Hamm v. Ray, 272 Ga. 659 (1) (531 SE2d 91) (2000), which delineated the characteristics of an ex post facto law.
  Date: 2003-08-06
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: Eidson v. State, Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2003-08-06 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Lawrence: record did not support Governor's reversal based on gravity of commitment offense
  Under the 'some evidence' standard, properly understood as asking whether some evidence supports a conclusion that the inmate is currently dangerous, the record did not support the Governor's reversal of the Board's parole grant based on the gravity of the commitment offense; the Court of Appeal's judgment granting habeas relief was affirmed.
  Date: 2008-08-21
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: In re Lawrence, 2008-08-21 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Facts cannot deny parole unless showing unreasonable risk to public safety
  In re Palmer (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) followed In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181, 1221, holding that facts may be considered but cannot be used as a basis upon which to deny parole unless accompanied by facts showing that an inmate 'continues to pose an unreasonable risk to public safety.'
  Date: 2018-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: In re Palmer, California Court of Appeal, 5th District, 2018-09-13 (court record via CourtListener)

- [reported] Luna Gutierrez v. Noem explains Wilkinson v. Dotson
  Later treatment: Luna Gutierrez v. Noem (D.D.C.) explained Wilkinson v. Dotson, U.S.
  Date: 2025-12-05
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: Luna Gutierrez v. Noem, District Court, District of Columbia, 2025-12-05 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Sandin: return to Wolff and Meachum principles
  The Court stated that the search for a negative implication from mandatory language in prisoner regulations has strayed from the real concerns undergirding the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, and that the time has come to return to the due process principles established in Wolff and Meachum.
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: Cinda SANDIN, Unit Team Manager, Halawa Correctional Facility, Petitioner, v. Demont R.D. CONNER et al. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

- [confirmed] O.C.G.A. § 42-9-42(b)(2)-(3) written decision and public inspection
  O.C.G.A. § 42-9-42(b)(2)-(3) requires that a grant of pardon, parole, or other relief from sentence be a written, signed decision, and that for a pardon for a serious offense or commutation of a death sentence, the written decision must include the board's findings reflecting its consideration of the evidence and be available for public inspection.
  Date: 2025-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 42-9-42 (GPS's copy of the Code)

- [confirmed] Thompson: Kentucky visitation regulations created no liberty interest; Sixth Circuit reversed
  Kentucky's prison visitation regulations, though they supplied substantive predicates, lacked mandatory language requiring a particular outcome, so they created no liberty interest in receiving visitors protected by the Due Process Clause; the Sixth Circuit's judgment was reversed.
  Date: 1989-01-01
  Tags: legal
  Sources: Kentucky Department of Corrections v. Thompson, Supreme Court of the United States, 1989-05-15 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Johnson v. Griffin (1999): proper remedy is mandamus against the Parole Board
  In Johnson v. Griffin, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that the proper remedy for a challenge to the Parole Board's determination of parole eligibility is a mandamus action against the Board, citing Lewis v. Griffin, 258 Ga. 887.
  Date: 1999-10-18
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Johnson v. Griffin, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1999-10-18 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Narrowed departure standard does not alter deferential review of Parole Board decisions
  In In re Parole of McBrayer, the Michigan Supreme Court stated that while the current version of MCL 791.233e narrows the Parole Board's ability to depart from the guidelines, it does not alter the deferential review that reviewing courts must give to the Parole Board's decisions.
  Date: 2023-07-24
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: In Re Parole of Richard Allen McBrayer, 2023-07-24 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] 1994 resolution: Senate Resolution No. 395 / Proposed Amendment No. 114 approved April 20, 1994
  The 1994 resolution proposing the amendment to Article IV, Section II, Paragraph II of the Georgia Constitution was Senate Resolution No. 395, designated Proposed Amendment to the Constitution No. 114, and was approved April 20, 1994.
  Date: 1994-04-20
  Tags: parole,legal,legislation
  Sources: Ga. L. 1994, p. 2015 (Acts and resolutions of the General Assembly of the state of Georgia 1994 [volume 1])

- [reported] Mississippi: absolute discretion affords no constitutionally recognized liberty interest
  The Mississippi Supreme Court's concurring opinion in Cotton v. Mississippi Parole Board noted that the trial judge correctly cited Scales v. Mississippi State Parole Board for the proposition that in Mississippi, the absolute discretion conferred on the Parole Board affords a prisoner no constitutionally recognized liberty interest.
  Date: 2003-11-20
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Cotton v. Mississippi Parole Bd., 2003-11-20 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Judge Carnes dissent: failure to certify state-law questions
  Judge Carnes dissented in Sultenfuss from the court's failure to certify the unsettled Georgia state-law questions to the Georgia Supreme Court, rather than from the majority's federal due process analysis.
  Date: 1994-10-05
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Stephen Sultenfuss, Charles McMulling v. Wayne Snow, Jr., James T. Morris, Mobley Howell, Michael... – CourtListener.com

- [confirmed] Montana Supreme Court: Board retains broad discretion despite liberty interest
  In McDermott v. McDonald, the Montana Supreme Court stated that although the pre-1989 mandatory language creates a liberty interest entitling the prisoner to certain due process protections, the Board retains extremely broad discretion to determine when the statutory criteria for release have been met, and it denied the habeas petition.
  Date: 2001-05-17
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: McDermott v. McDonald, 2001-05-17 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Daker v. Ray followed Justice v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles
  Later treatment: Daker v. Ray followed Justice v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles, 234 Ga. 749, 751 (2) (218 SE2d 45) (1975), regarding the Board's discretionary constitutional power.
  Date: 2002-04-29
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Daker v. Ray, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2002-04-29 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Greenholtz quotes Nebraska statute's four deferral reasons
  The Court quoted the Nebraska statute as providing that '[w]henever the Board of Parole considers the release of a committed offender who is eligible for release on parole, it shall order his release unless it is of the opinion that his release should be deferred' for one of four specified reasons.
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: John B. GREENHOLTZ, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. INMATES OF the NEBRASKA PENAL AND CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX et al. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

- [confirmed] 1943 Act: parolee remains in legal custody of Board; violation subject to rearrest
  The Act creating the State Board of Pardons and Paroles provided that any parolee 'shall remain in the legal custody of the Board until the expiration of the maximum term specified in his sentence or until he is pardoned by the Board,' and that 'In the event a parolee violates the terms of his parole, he shall be subject to rearrest and/or extradition for placement in the actual custody of the Board.'
  Date: 1943-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal,legislation
  Sources: Ga. L. 1943, p. 185 (Acts and resolutions of the General Assembly of the state of Georgia 1943 [volume 1])

- [reported] Charron superior court relied on constitutional revision transcripts and separation-of-powers to bar legislative oversight
  The Charron superior court had concluded, from transcripts of the Select Committee on Constitutional Revision, that the drafters of the 1983 Constitution intended to prohibit legislative oversight of the Board, and also relied on the separation-of-powers provisions of the State Constitutions. Quoted text: 'And, from reading transcripts of the proceedings of the Select Committee on Constitutional Revision, the court concluded that it was the intent of the drafters of the 1983 Constitution to prohibit legislative oversight of the board. In addition, the court held that its ruling was also mandated by the separation-of-power provisions of the State Constitutions.'
  Date: 1984-09-06
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Charron v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1984-09-06 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] NJ appellate standard: no final judgment, no right to appeal
  New Jersey's appellate practice standards state that if there is no final judgment, there is no right to appeal, citing Rule 2:2-3.
  Tags: legal
  Sources: njcourts.gov: appellatestandards

- [confirmed] Ga. L. 1974, p. 474: Parole requires Board finding of reasonable probability of law-abiding conduct
  As re-set-out by the 1974 amending Act, Section 13 provided: 'No prisoner shall be released on probation or placed on parole until and unless the Board shall find that there is reasonable probability that, if he is so released, he will live and conduct himself as a respectable and law-abiding person, and that his release will be compatible with his own welfare and the welfare of society.'
  Date: 1974-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Ga. L. 1974, p. 474 (Acts and resolutions of the General Assembly of the state of Georgia 1974 [volume 1])

- [confirmed] Wilkinson v. Dotson: success means at most new parole review, not immediate release
  Wilkinson v. Dotson states that success for Dotson would mean at most new parole eligibility review, which would at most speed consideration of a new parole application, and success for Johnson would mean at most a new parole hearing at which Ohio parole authorities may, in their discretion, decline to shorten his prison term.
  Date: 2005-03-07
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: Wilkinson v. Dotson, Supreme Court of the United States, 2005-03-07 (court record via CourtListener)

- [reported] General Assembly constitutionally empowered to set parole eligibility by statute
  An Attorney General unofficial opinion (96-20) states that the General Assembly is constitutionally empowered to determine, by statute, eligibility for parole, citing Freeman v. State, 264 Ga. 27, 29 (1994).
  Tags: parole,legal,legislation
  Sources: 96-20 | Office of the Attorney General

- [reported] Gutierrez v. Saenz later treatment of Woodard
  Gutierrez v. Saenz (U.S. 2025) explained Ohio Adult Parole Auth. v. Woodard, noting that Justice O'Connor, in contrast, left open the possibility that minimal procedural safeguards apply to clemency proceedings.
  Date: 2025-06-26
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: Gutierrez v. Saenz, Supreme Court of the United States, 2025-06-26 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] OCGA § 17-10-6.1(b) bars parole for serious violent felonies
  OCGA § 17-10-6.1(a) specifies serious violent felonies, murder or felony murder, armed robbery, kidnapping, rape, aggravated child molestation, aggravated sodomy, and aggravated sexual battery. Subsection (b) mandates that the sentence be served in its entirety and that no portion be suspended, reduced by parole or other sentence-reducing measures, or commuted by the State Board of Pardons and Paroles.
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Campbell v. State, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1997-05-12 (court record via CourtListener)

- [reported] Sultenfuss panel: O.C.G.A. § 42-9-42(c) not inconsistent with liberty interest
  The vacated panel majority in Sultenfuss concluded that the language of O.C.G.A. § 42-9-42(c) was not inconsistent with the liberty interest the panel found was created by O.C.G.A. § 42-9-40 and the Guidelines.
  Date: 1993-11-03
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Stephen Sultenfuss, Charles McMulling v. Wayne Snow, Jr., James T. Morris, Mobley Howell, Michael H. Wing, Bettye O. Hutchings, Michael J. Bowers, U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, 1993-11-03 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Colorado: 90-day parole hearing after presumption eligibility
  C.R.S. § 17-22.5-404.5(2): 'Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, an inmate who is eligible for the presumption in subsection (1) of this section shall have a parole release hearing within ninety days after becoming eligible for the presumption in subsection (1) of this section.'
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: C.R.S. 17-22.5-404.5 – Presumption of parole

- [confirmed] Metheny v. Hammonds: Board has executive power over parole terms
  The Eleventh Circuit in Metheny v. Hammonds (2000) cited Stephens v. State, 207 Ga. App. 645, 428 S.E.2d 661, 663 (1993), determining that the Board has executive power concerning the terms and conditions of paroles, so a judicial attempt to condition parole on waiver of Fourth Amendment rights is a nullity.
  Date: 2000-07-07
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Willis Metheny v. Garfield Hammonds, Jr., Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 2000-07-07 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Bradshaw v. State followed Terry v. Hamrick on statutory interpretation
  Later treatment: Bradshaw v. State, Supreme Court of Georgia followed Terry v. Hamrick, Ga.
  Date: 2008-11-25
  Tags: legal
  Sources: Bradshaw v. State, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2008-11-25 (court record via CourtListener)

- [reported] Mandamus rejected in Cook v. State, following Daker v. Ray
  Cook v. State (Ga. 2022) followed Daker v. Ray, 205, 206 (563 S.E.2d 429) (2002), which rejected the writ of mandamus.
  Date: 2022-03-15
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: Cook v. State, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2022-03-15 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] California Penal Code § 3041(a)(2): panel shall normally grant parole one year before MEPD
  California Penal Code § 3041(a)(2) provides that one year before the inmate's minimum eligible parole date a panel of two or more commissioners or deputy commissioners shall again meet with the inmate and shall normally grant parole as provided in Section 3041.5.
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: California Code, PEN 3041

- [confirmed] Colorado: parole is a privilege, not a right; Board decision not subject to judicial review
  The Colorado Supreme Court held that the decision of the State Board of Parole to grant or deny parole is discretionary since parole is 'a privilege, and no prisoner is entitled to it as a matter of right' (citing Silva v. People, 158 Colo. 326, 407 P.2d 38 (1965)); thus the decision to grant or deny is not subject to judicial review.
  Date: 1980-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: In re Question Concerning State Judicial Review of Parole Denial Certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 1980-05-12 (court record via CourtListener)

- [reported] Luna Gutierrez v. Noem distinguishes Sandin v. Conner
  Later treatment: Luna Gutierrez v. Noem (D.D.C.) distinguished Sandin v. Conner, U.S., noting the case involves immigration detainees, not convicted prisoners.
  Date: 2025-12-05
  Tags: legal
  Sources: Luna Gutierrez v. Noem, District Court, District of Columbia, 2025-12-05 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Sandin: no inevitable effect on sentence duration
  The Court stated that Conner's situation did not present a case where the State's action would inevitably affect the duration of his sentence, because nothing in Hawaii's code requires the parole board to deny parole in the face of a misconduct record or to grant parole in its absence.
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: Cinda SANDIN, Unit Team Manager, Halawa Correctional Facility, Petitioner, v. Demont R.D. CONNER et al. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

- [confirmed] O.C.G.A. § 42-9-42 amendment history
  O.C.G.A. § 42-9-42's history lists amendments in 1986, 2015 (twice), 2017, and 2025, with no amendment between the 1986 amendment and the 2015 amendments.
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 42-9-42 (GPS's copy of the Code)

- [confirmed] LII: Kentucky regulations do not give liberty interest in receiving visitors
  The Court held that the Kentucky regulations do not give state inmates a liberty interest in receiving visitors that is entitled to the protections of the Due Process Clause.
  Tags: legal
  Sources: KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Petitioners v. James M. THOMPSON et al. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

- [confirmed] Johnson v. Griffin (1999): claim arises from Board determination, not sentence or incarceration
  The Georgia Supreme Court held that a claim arising from the Parole Board's determination that a prisoner is no longer eligible for parole is not cognizable in habeas corpus proceedings, and that the proper remedy lies in a mandamus action against the Board. The court reasoned that 'Griffin's claim arises not from his sentence or incarceration pursuant to that sentence but from the Parole Board's subsequent determination that he is no longer eligible for parole.'
  Date: 1999-10-18
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Johnson v. Griffin, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1999-10-18 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Michigan statute does not require Parole Board to explain decision not to depart from guidelines
  In In re Parole of McBrayer, the Michigan Supreme Court stated that the Michigan parole statute does not require the Parole Board to explain its reasoning or even acknowledge the existence of substantial and compelling reasons for departure from the guidelines if it chooses not to depart.
  Date: 2023-07-24
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: In Re Parole of Richard Allen McBrayer, 2023-07-24 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] 1994 amendment struck and replaced Article IV, Sec. II, Para. II subparagraphs (b) and (e)
  The resolution amended Article IV, Section II, Paragraph II of the Constitution by striking subparagraphs (b) and (e) in their entirety and inserting new subparagraphs (b) and (e), enacting the two-thirds roll-call-vote mandatory-sentence and life-without-parole provisions and the innocence/medical/elderly exceptions.
  Date: 1994-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal,legislation
  Sources: Ga. L. 1994, p. 2015 (Acts and resolutions of the General Assembly of the state of Georgia 1994 [volume 1])

- [reported] Missouri Supreme Court follows Dumschat on expectation of clemency relief
  In State ex rel. Parson v. Walker, the Supreme Court of Missouri followed Connecticut Board of Pardons v. Dumschat, 452 U.S. 458, 463 (1981), regarding the expectation of clemency relief.
  Date: 2024-06-04
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: State ex rel. Governor Michael L. Parson, Relator v. The Honorable Cotton Walker, Supreme Court of Missouri, 2024-06-04 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Judge Clark dissent, joined by four judges, on due process denial
  Judge Clark, joined by Judges Kravitch, Hatchett and Barkett, dissented in Sultenfuss, arguing the majority erred in denying due process to Georgia prisoners entitled to parole consideration, failed to follow controlling Supreme Court precedent, and allowed a state administrative agency to ignore a controlling statute passed by the legislature.
  Date: 1994-10-05
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Stephen Sultenfuss, Charles McMulling v. Wayne Snow, Jr., James T. Morris, Mobley Howell, Michael... – CourtListener.com

- [confirmed] Montana current parole statute uses discretionary 'may'
  Montana's current parole statute (MCA 46-23-201) provides that, subject to statutory restrictions and criteria, 'the board may release on nonmedical parole by appropriate order any person who is' confined in a state prison or otherwise described in the section.
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: 46-23-201. Prisoners eligible for nonmedical parole, MCA

- [confirmed] Daker v. Ray followed Vargas v. Morris
  Later treatment: Daker v. Ray followed Vargas v. Morris, 266 Ga. 141, 142 (2) (465 SE2d 275) (1996), regarding the Board's discretionary constitutional power to make parole decisions.
  Date: 2002-04-29
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Daker v. Ray, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2002-04-29 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Due process does not require Parole Board to specify evidence for denial
  The Court held that nothing in due process concepts requires the Parole Board to specify the particular evidence on which it rests its discretionary determination to deny release, because the Nebraska procedure affords an opportunity to be heard and, when parole is denied, informs the inmate in what respects he falls short of qualifying for parole, which affords all the process due.
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: John B. GREENHOLTZ, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. INMATES OF the NEBRASKA PENAL AND CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX et al. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

- [confirmed] 1994 constitutional amendment gave General Assembly clear authority to limit parole
  The Attorney General opined that the amendment to Ga. Const. art. IV, § II, ¶ II was proposed in 1994 Ga. Laws 2015-18 and approved in the November 1994 general election, and with its passage the General Assembly has clear authority to enact general law approved by two-thirds vote that limits the Board's parole authority.
  Date: 1994-11-01
  Tags: parole,legal,legislation
  Sources: 95-4 | Office of the Attorney General

- [confirmed] Trantino: 1979 Act requires release unless preponderance of evidence shows substantial likelihood of crime
  In Trantino v. New Jersey State Parole Board (2001), the New Jersey Supreme Court described the 1979 Act's standard: inmates eligible for parole 'shall be released on parole at the time of parole eligibility, unless [it is shown] by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a substantial likelihood that the inmate will commit a crime ... if released on parole at such time' (N.J.S.A. 30:4-123-53).
  Date: 2001-01-18
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Trantino v. New Jersey State Parole Board, 2001-01-18 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] NJ Constitution provides judicial review of agency actions
  New Jersey's appellate standards document states that the New Jersey State Constitution provides for judicial review of actions by administrative agencies (N.J. Const. art. VI, § 5, ¶ 4).
  Tags: legal
  Sources: njcourts.gov: appellatestandards

- [confirmed] Ga. L. 1975, p. 795: Parole-presumption clause re-set-out with same reasonable-probability standard
  As re-set-out by a later amending Act (Ga. L. 1975, p. 795), the parole-presumption clause continued to provide: 'No prisoner shall be released on probation or placed on parole until and unless the Board shall find that there is reasonable probability that, if he is so released, he will live and conduct himself as a respectable and law-abiding person, and that his release will be compatible with his own welfare, and the welfare of society.'
  Date: 1975-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Ga. L. 1975, p. 795 (Acts and resolutions of the General Assembly of the state of Georgia 1975 [volume 1])

- [confirmed] Wilkinson v. Austin: touchstone of liberty interest is nature of conditions, not regulation language
  The Court in Wilkinson v. Austin stated that after Sandin, the touchstone of the inquiry into the existence of a protected, state-created liberty interest in avoiding restrictive conditions of confinement is not the language of regulations regarding those conditions but the nature of those conditions themselves "in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life" (Id. at 484).
  Tags: legal,solitary,conditions
  Sources: WILKINSON v. AUSTIN | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

- [reported] 1976 Georgia Constitution: Board of Pardons and Paroles composition
  Under the Georgia Constitution preceding the current one, the State Board of Pardons and Paroles was to be composed of not less than five or more than seven members, the number to be determined by the General Assembly, and until changed by the General Assembly the Board consisted of five members.
  Date: 1976-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Georgia State Constitution (1976) - Wikisource, the free online library

- [reported] Ballentine v. Broxton follows Woodard
  The Fifth Circuit in Ballentine v. Broxton (2025) followed Ohio Adult Parole Auth. v. Woodard, citing 523 U.S. 272, 286 (1998) as lending support to its holding.
  Date: 2025-09-16
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: Ballentine v. Broxton, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 2025-09-16 (court record via CourtListener)

- [reported] Judge Pittman dissent in Sultenfuss
  Senior District Judge Pittman dissented from the panel majority's conclusion that the Georgia parole system creates a liberty interest and stated he would affirm the district court's judgment.
  Date: 1993-11-03
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Stephen Sultenfuss, Charles McMulling v. Wayne Snow, Jr., James T. Morris, Mobley Howell, Michael H. Wing, Bettye O. Hutchings, Michael J. Bowers, U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, 1993-11-03 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Colorado presumption does not limit parole board discretion
  C.R.S. § 17-22.5-404.5(5): 'Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the discretion of the parole board in considering the statutory release guidelines in section 17-22.5-404 or the administrative release guidelines developed pursuant to section 17-22.5-107 (1) in making a decision regarding an inmate's application for release to parole.'
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: C.R.S. 17-22.5-404.5 – Presumption of parole

- [confirmed] Constitution: five-member Board of Pardons and Paroles, seven-year terms
  A compiled text of Ga. Const. art. IV, § II, ¶ I states there shall be a State Board of Pardons and Paroles which shall consist of five members appointed by the Governor, subject to confirmation by the Senate, and that all such terms of members shall be for seven years.
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Article IV, Georgia Constitution - Ballotpedia

- [confirmed] Shields v. BellSouth: certification for unsettled state law questions
  The Eleventh Circuit in Shields v. BellSouth Advertising & Publishing Co. (2000) followed Sultenfuss v. Snow, 35 F.3d 1494, 1504 (11th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (Carnes, J., dissenting), which stated that only through certification can federal courts get definitive answers to unsettled state law questions.
  Date: 2000-09-29
  Tags: legal
  Sources: Shields v. BellSouth Advertising & Publishing Co., Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 2000-09-29 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Georgia Amendment 2 approved on November 8, 1994
  Ballotpedia states that Georgia Amendment 2 was on the ballot as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment in Georgia on November 8, 1994, and that it was approved.
  Date: 1994-11-08
  Tags: legal,policy
  Sources: Georgia Amendment 2, Mandatory Sentences and Restrictions on Pardons and Paroles Amendment (1994) - Ballotpedia

- [confirmed] Garnett v. Hamrick followed Daker v. Ray on mandamus relief
  In Garnett v. Hamrick, the Supreme Court of Georgia followed Daker v. Ray, 275 Ga. 205, 206 (1) (563 SE2d 429) (2002), holding that because Garnett had a specific legal remedy, she was not entitled to the mandamus relief she sought.
  Date: 2006-01-01
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: Garnett v. Hamrick, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2006-05-17 (court record via CourtListener)

- [reported] Greenholtz framework applied to liberty-interest analysis (Gregory v. Sexual Offender Registration Review Board)
  Gregory v. Sexual Offender Registration Review Board (Ga. 2016) cited Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (III) (1979), and noted that Gregory and the Board disputed whether classification as a sexually dangerous predator implicates a liberty interest.
  Date: 2016-03-21
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: Gregory v. Sexual Offender Registration Review Board, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2016-03-21 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] California Penal Code § 3041(b)(1): board shall grant parole unless public safety requires longer incarceration
  California Penal Code § 3041(b)(1) provides that the panel or the board, sitting en banc, 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.
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: California Code, PEN 3041

- [confirmed] Colorado judicial review limited to directing Board to exercise discretion
  Colorado's judicial review of a Parole Board decision permits the district court to direct the Board to proceed and exercise its discretion, but not to direct how discretion is to be exercised (citing Lamm v. Barber, 192 Colo. 511, 565 P.2d 538 (1977)).
  Date: 1980-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: In re Question Concerning State Judicial Review of Parole Denial Certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 1980-05-12 (court record via CourtListener)

- [reported] Taylor v. Trump explains Sandin v. Conner
  Later treatment: Taylor v. Trump (D.D.C.) explained Sandin v. Conner, U.S.
  Date: 2026-02-11
  Tags: legal
  Sources: Taylor v. Trump, District Court, District of Columbia, 2026-02-11 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] O.C.G.A. § 42-9-43(d)(2) notice of board determination
  O.C.G.A. § 42-9-43(d)(2) requires that notice of the board's determination be given to the person being considered, the correctional official having him or her in custody, if applicable, the district attorney who submitted any information or objection, and the victim if the victim has expressed a desire for such notification.
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 42-9-43 (GPS's copy of the Code)

- [confirmed] LII: 'explicitly mandatory language' requirement for liberty interest
  The Court held that it has articulated a requirement, implicit in earlier decisions, that regulations contain 'explicitly mandatory language,' i.e., specific directives to the decisionmaker that if the regulations' substantive predicates are present, a particular outcome must follow, in order to create a liberty interest.
  Tags: legal
  Sources: KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Petitioners v. James M. THOMPSON et al. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

- [confirmed] Lewis v. Griffin (1989): parole challenge requires showing gross abuse of discretion
  In Lewis v. Griffin, the Supreme Court of Georgia stated in a footnote that success in a suit against the Parole Board would depend on the prisoner demonstrating a gross abuse of discretion by the Board in denying parole, citing OCGA § 42-9-42(c),(d) and Justice v. State Board of Pardons and Paroles, 234 Ga. 749.
  Date: 1989-02-23
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Lewis v. Griffin, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1989-02-23 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] 1994 amendment ballot question: mandatory service and LWOP, Board barred from parole consideration
  The amendment resolution directed that the proposed amendment be published and submitted as provided in Article X, Section I, Paragraph II of the Constitution, and set out a ballot question asking whether the Constitution should be amended to let the General Assembly by two-thirds vote provide mandatory service of sentences for armed robbery, kidnapping, rape, aggravated child molestation, aggravated sodomy, or aggravated sexual battery, and life without parole for murder and repeat offenders of those crimes, with the State Board of Pardons and Paroles barred from considering such persons for pardon, parole, or commutation during that portion of the sentence.
  Date: 1994-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal,legislation
  Sources: Ga. L. 1994, p. 2015 (Acts and resolutions of the General Assembly of the state of Georgia 1994 [volume 1])

- [reported] Montana 1989 amendment changed 'shall release' to 'may release'
  In response to Allen, the Montana legislature amended section 46-23-201 MCA to state that 'the Board may release' inmates on parole when there is a reasonable probability that the prisoner can be released without detriment.
  Date: 1989-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal,legislation
  Sources: Worden v. Montana Bd. of Pardons and Parole, 1998-07-07 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Worden: Montana statute's mandatory language created liberty interest
  In Worden v. Montana Bd. of Pardons and Parole, the court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the mandatory 'shall release' language of Montana's parole statute creates a liberty interest in parole protected by the due process clause of the federal constitution.
  Date: 1998-07-07
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Worden v. Montana Bd. of Pardons and Parole, 1998-07-07 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Daker v. Ray followed Ray v. Barber on timely parole consideration
  Later treatment: Daker v. Ray followed Ray v. Barber, 273 Ga. 856, 857 (2) (548 SE2d 283) (2001), and OCGA § 42-9-45(a),(b), regarding entitlement to timely consideration for parole.
  Date: 2002-04-29
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Daker v. Ray, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2002-04-29 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Pre-1994 potential conflict between legislative sentencing power and Board clemency power
  The Attorney General opined that before the 1994 constitutional amendment there existed potential for conflict between the legislative prerogative of the General Assembly to establish crimes and prescribe punishment and the Board's constitutionally-derived power to grant clemency, and that with passage of the amendment the General Assembly now has clear authority to enact general law approved by two-thirds vote limiting the Board's authority.
  Date: 1995-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal,legislation
  Sources: 95-4 | Office of the Attorney General

- [confirmed] Trantino: controlling question is whether preponderance of credible evidence supports parole denial
  In Trantino, the New Jersey Supreme Court described the critical and controlling question on appellate review of a parole denial as whether a preponderance of the credible evidence in the record supports the Parole Board's determination that there is a substantial likelihood the inmate will commit a crime if released on parole.
  Date: 2001-01-18
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Trantino v. New Jersey State Parole Board, 2001-01-18 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] State v. Cook: due process is flexible in parole context
  In State v. Cook (2004), the Supreme Court of New Jersey recognized that due process is a flexible concept that depends on the facts and circumstances of the matter at hand, citing New Jersey Parole Bd. v. Byrne, 93 N.J. 192, 209 (1983).
  Date: 2004-05-10
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: State v. Cook, Supreme Court of New Jersey, 2004-05-10 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Wilkinson v. Austin: Ohio inmates have protected liberty interest in avoiding Supermax assignment
  Applying Sandin, the Supreme Court held that Ohio inmates have a protected liberty interest in avoiding assignment to the Ohio State Penitentiary (Supermax) because its conditions impose an atypical and significant hardship. It further held that Ohio's New Policy procedures were adequate under Mathews, and reversed the Sixth Circuit's contrary ruling.
  Tags: legal,solitary,conditions
  Sources: WILKINSON v. AUSTIN | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

- [reported] Interstate transfer does not implicate liberty interest
  An interstate prison transfer (Hawaii to California) does not implicate a liberty interest under the Due Process Clause itself. Hawaii's regulations, which required a hearing but left the transfer decision to the Administrator's unfettered discretion, created no state liberty interest. The Ninth Circuit erred in giving weight to the mandated hearing procedure.
  Date: 1993-11-03
  Tags: transfers,legal
  Sources: Stephen Sultenfuss, Charles McMulling v. Wayne Snow, Jr., James T. Morris, Mobley Howell, Michael H. Wing, Bettye O. Hutchings, Michael J. Bowers, U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, 1993-11-03 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] OCGA § 42-9-47: 72-hour notification of parole decision
  O.C.G.A. § 42-9-47 requires that within 72 hours after the board reaches a final decision to parole an inmate, the district attorney, the presiding judge, the sheriff of each county in which the inmate was tried, convicted, and sentenced, the local law enforcement authorities of the county of the last residence of the inmate prior to incarceration, and the victim of crimes against the person shall be notified of the decision by the chairman of the board.
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 42-9-47 (GPS's copy of the Code)

- [confirmed] Constitution: Board vested with executive clemency powers
  Ga. Const. art. IV, § II, ¶ II(a) provides that, except as otherwise provided in that Paragraph, the State Board of Pardons and Paroles shall be vested with the power of executive clemency, including the powers to grant reprieves, pardons, and paroles; to commute penalties; to remove disabilities imposed by law; and to remit any part of a sentence for any offense against the state after conviction.
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Article IV, Georgia Constitution - Ballotpedia

- [confirmed] Chappell v. Mandeville: McQuillion on Sandin and parole
  The Ninth Circuit in Chappell v. Mandeville (2013) explained McQuillion v. Duncan, 306 F.3d 895, 903 (9th Cir. 2002), which held that Sandin was not applicable to the parole system at issue but opined that Sandin abandoned the mandatory language framework.
  Date: 2013-01-31
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Rex Chappell v. R. Mandeville, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2013-01-31 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Georgia created State Board of Pardons and Paroles in February 1943
  The Board of Pardons and Paroles states on its own 'About' page that public concern led the General Assembly to enact legislation, signed into law in February 1943, which created the State Board of Pardons and Paroles as an independent agency to administer executive clemency.
  Date: 1943-02-01
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: About | State Board of Pardons and Paroles

- [reported] Vargas v. Morris cited on parole discretion (Dickerson v. Augusta-Richmond County Commission)
  Dickerson v. Augusta-Richmond County Commission (Ga. 1999) cited Vargas v. Morris, 266 Ga. 141 (1), 465 S.E.2d 275 (1996), and found no abuse of discretion in the case.
  Date: 1999-11-01
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: Dickerson v. Augusta-Richmond County Commission, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1999-11-01 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Colorado courts may review Board actions only for failure to exercise statutory duties
  In In re Question Concerning State Judicial Review of Parole Denial, the Supreme Court of Colorado held that it is only when the Board has failed to exercise its statutory duties that the courts of Colorado have the power to review the Board's actions.
  Date: 1980-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: In re Question Concerning State Judicial Review of Parole Denial Certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 1980-05-12 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] O.C.G.A. § 42-9-43(a) information considered by board
  O.C.G.A. § 42-9-43(a) requires the board, in considering any case, to cause to be brought before it all pertinent information on the person in question, including conduct reports, physical and mental examination results, the district attorney's views and recommendation on parole, and victim testimony/statements if provided.
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 42-9-43 (GPS's copy of the Code)

- [confirmed] LII: state law may create enforceable liberty interests in prison setting
  The Court stated that state law may create enforceable liberty interests in the prison setting, and that it has found certain regulations granted inmates a protected interest in parole, citing Board of Pardons v. Allen and Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates.
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Petitioners v. James M. THOMPSON et al. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

- [reported] Pre-1989 Montana statute used mandatory 'shall release' language
  Prior to 1989, Montana's parole eligibility statute used mandatory language, providing that 'the board shall release on parole ... any person confined in the Montana state prison or the women's correctional center... when in its opinion there is reasonable probability that the prisoner can be released without detriment to the prisoner or to the community.'
  Date: 1987-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal,legislation
  Sources: Worden v. Montana Bd. of Pardons and Parole, 1998-07-07 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Daker v. Ray distinguished Riley v. Garrett on mandamus availability
  Later treatment: Daker v. Ray distinguished Riley v. Garrett, 219 Ga. 345, 351 (2) (133 SE2d 367) (1963), noting that mandamus can issue only if there is no other specific legal remedy under OCGA § 9-6-20, so the trial court correctly denied filing as to the void-conviction claim.
  Date: 2002-04-29
  Tags: legal
  Sources: Daker v. Ray, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2002-04-29 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Nebraska § 83-1,114(1) mechanism entitled to some constitutional protection
  The Court held that while the language and structure of Nebraska's § 83-1,114(1) provides a mechanism for parole that is entitled to some constitutional protection, the Nebraska procedure provides all the process due with respect to the discretionary parole decision.
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: John B. GREENHOLTZ, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. INMATES OF the NEBRASKA PENAL AND CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX et al. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

- [confirmed] As of Jan 1, 1995, constitutional limits bar parole during mandatory minimum for seven serious violent felonies
  The Attorney General concluded that as of January 1, 1995, additional constitutional limitations had been placed on the Board's power to parole which are the clear prerogative of the General Assembly to proscribe, including the inability to parole during the mandatory minimum sentence for the seven serious violent felonies set out in O.C.G.A. § 17-10-6.1.
  Date: 1995-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal,legislation
  Sources: 95-4 | Office of the Attorney General

- [reported] Miller v. Oregon Bd. of Parole applied Greenholtz and Allen
  In Miller v. Oregon Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, the Ninth Circuit explained McQuillion v. Duncan, noting that in McQuillion it had to decide whether California's parole scheme created a liberty interest in parole and drew heavily on Greenholtz and Allen.
  Date: 2011-04-25
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: Miller v. OREGON BD. OF PAROLE SUPERVISION, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2011-04-25 (court record via CourtListener)

- [reported] Boothe quotes N.Y. Executive Law § 259-i2(c) on discretionary release
  In Boothe v. Hammock, the Second Circuit quoted N.Y. Executive Law § 259-i2(c) as providing that discretionary release on parole shall not be granted merely as a reward for good conduct or efficient performance of duties while confined but after considering if there is a reasonable probability that, if such inmate is released, he will live and remain at liberty without violating the law, and that his release is not incompatible with the welfare of society and will not so deprecate the seriousness of his crime as to undermine respect for law.
  Date: 1979-09-14
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Michael Boothe v. Edward Hammock, Chairman, New York State Board of Parole, U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, 1979-09-14 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Olivier v. City of Brandon follows Wilkinson v. Dotson
  The U.S. Supreme Court in Olivier v. City of Brandon (2026) followed Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, in which the Court allowed state prisoners to bring a Section 1983 action.
  Date: 2026-03-20
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Olivier v. City of Brandon, Supreme Court of the United States, 2026-03-20 (court record via CourtListener)

- [reported] Board of Pardons and Paroles purpose includes supervision of felony probationers (Wolcott v. State)
  Wolcott v. State (Ga. 2004) cited Stephens v. State, 207 Ga. App. 645, 647 (2), 428 S.E.2d 661 (1993), regarding the State Board of Pardons and Paroles, and stated that the purpose of that department is 'the supervision of felony probationers.'
  Date: 2004-10-25
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Wolcott v. State, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2004-10-25 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Colorado statute grants Board sole power over parole for certain offenses
  In Mahn v. Gunter, the Tenth Circuit quoted Colo. Rev. Stat. § 17-2-201(5)(a) as providing that as to any person sentenced for conviction of a sex offense, as defined in section 16-13-202(5), C.R.S., the board has the sole power to grant or refuse to grant parole and to fix the conditions thereof and has full discretion to set the duration of the term of parole granted.
  Date: 1992-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Donald Arthur Mahn v. Frank Gunter Gale A. Norton, Attorney General of the State of Colorado, U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit, 1992-10-29 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] O.C.G.A. § 42-9-43(d)(1) board findings and determination
  O.C.G.A. § 42-9-43(d)(1) provides that after considering reports, files, records, information and oral testimony, the board shall make its findings and determine whether or not such person shall be granted a pardon, parole, or other relief within the power of the board and determine the terms and conditions thereof.
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 42-9-43 (GPS's copy of the Code)

- [confirmed] Massachusetts parole standard under G.L. c. 127, § 130
  In Greenman v. Massachusetts Parole Board, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts quoted G. L. c. 127, § 130 as providing that no prisoner shall be granted a parole permit merely as a reward for good conduct but only if the parole board is of the opinion that there is a reasonable probability that, if such prisoner is released, he will live and remain at liberty without violating the law, and that his release is not incompatible with the welfare of society.
  Date: 1989-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Greenman v. MASSACHUSETTS PAROLE BOARD, 1989-07-11 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Daker v. Ray carried Vargas rule forward and widened its statutory basis
  Daker v. Ray (Supreme Court of Georgia) carried the Vargas rule forward and widened its basis: it read the statutes (OCGA § 42-9-40(a), § 42-9-42(c)) as not mandating that the guidelines control the final decision, while still citing Vargas for the Board's express reservation of discretion in the guidelines themselves.
  Date: 2002-04-29
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Daker v. Ray, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2002-04-29 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Pennsylvania statute requires reasons and areas of emphasis on parole denial
  Pennsylvania's parole statute (61 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6139) provides that if an incarcerated person is denied parole, the board shall provide a brief statement of the reasons for the board's refusal, and if the board denies parole and sets a subsequent review date, the board shall provide to the incarcerated person areas of emphasis that will be considered for purposes of making the board's future paroling decision, including recommended programming, behavior standards and compliance standards.
  Tags: legal,parole,policy
  Sources: Section 6139.0 - Title 61 - PRISONS AND PAROLE

- [reported] Boothe: Greenholtz majority held possibility of parole not protected interest
  In Boothe v. Hammock, the Second Circuit stated that the fundamental point made by the majority in Greenholtz was that the possibility of parole release is not an interest entitled to due process protection, and that Greenholtz held the Nebraska statute's requirement that release 'shall' be ordered 'unless' one of four disqualifying conditions is found to exist was the characteristic relevant to finding a protectible expectation of parole.
  Date: 1979-09-14
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Michael Boothe v. Edward Hammock, Chairman, New York State Board of Parole, U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, 1979-09-14 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Georgia parole regulation authority citations
  Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 475-3-.05 (Parole Consideration) carries the authority note citing Ga. Const. 1983, Art. 4, § 2, ¶ 2 and O.C.G.A. §§ 42-9-1, 42-9-40, 42-9-45.
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: law.cornell.edu: Ga Comp R Regs R 475 3 .05

- [reported] Issue preclusion applied to bar re-litigation (Green v. State)
  Green v. State (Ga. 1979) held that the law of Georgia is clear that Green may not then raise the issue, citing Riley v. Garrett, 219 Ga. 345, 351, 133 S.E.2d 367 (1963).
  Date: 1979-11-21
  Tags: legal
  Sources: Green v. State, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1979-11-21 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] O.C.G.A. § 42-9-46 statement explaining early parole grant
  O.C.G.A. § 42-9-46 provides that if an objection to early parole consideration was filed and the board grants early parole, it shall issue a statement explaining its reasoning for granting such parole and such statement shall be served on any party who filed an objection.
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 42-9-46 (GPS's copy of the Code)

- [confirmed] Torres v. Brookman: Sandin qualifies mandatory language framework
  The Seventh Circuit in Norberto Torres v. Kent Brookman (2025) explained that Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, in turn qualifies the mandatory language framework for identifying liberty interests.
  Date: 2025-10-17
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Norberto Torres v. Kent Brookman, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 2025-10-17 (court record via CourtListener)

POLICYS (13)
----------------------------------------
- [confirmed] Board rule: life-sentence parole reconsideration at least every eight years
  The Board's rule on parole consideration provides that reconsideration of inmates serving life sentences who have been denied parole shall take place at least every eight years, and the Board will inform inmates denied parole of the reasons for such denial without disclosing confidential sources of information or possible discouraging diagnostic opinions.
  Tags: parole,policy,legal
  Sources: GA R&R - GAC - Chapter 475-3 RULES

- [confirmed] Board rule: five-year reconsideration for Parole Decision Guidelines inmates
  The Board's rule on parole consideration provides that inmates considered under the Parole Decision Guidelines system, who are not paroled or discharged from prison earlier, will be reconsidered at least every five years after the date they become statutorily eligible for parole.
  Tags: parole,policy,legal
  Sources: GA R&R - GAC - Chapter 475-3 RULES

- [confirmed] Board rule: 72-hour parole notice to officials
  The Board's rule on notification to officials provides that when the Board issues a parole order, a notice of parole will within 72 hours be sent to the presiding judge, district attorney, and sheriff of the county of conviction and to the sheriff of the county of the parolee's last residence if this was in Georgia.
  Tags: parole,policy,legal
  Sources: GA R&R - GAC - Chapter 475-3 RULES

- [confirmed] Board rule: denial-through-confinement recommendation triggers consideration at one-third of sentence
  A Board rule provides that if, upon the initial application of the Parole Decision Guidelines System, it is recommended that an inmate be denied parole throughout his or her confinement, the inmate will be considered for parole at the expiration of one-third of the sentence or sentences.
  Tags: parole,policy,legal
  Sources: GA R&R - GAC - Chapter 475-3 RULES

- [confirmed] Board regulation: Parole Decision Guidelines System does not create liberty interest
  A Board regulation recounted in Sultenfuss states that the Parole Decision Guidelines System is an aid to the Board and does not create a liberty interest, and that the Board reserves the right to disagree with the Guidelines recommendation and establish a Tentative Parole Month at any time prior to sentence expiration.
  Date: 1994-10-05
  Tags: parole,policy,legal
  Sources: Stephen Sultenfuss, Charles McMulling v. Wayne Snow, Jr., James T. Morris, Mobley Howell, Michael... – CourtListener.com

- [confirmed] Board: TPM is not a final parole decision
  The Board of Pardons and Paroles states on its own website that a Tentative Parole Month is NOT a final parole decision; a Tentative Parole Month or TPM represents when the Board will complete a final review of the offender's case and, if appropriate, set a parole release date.
  Tags: parole,policy
  Sources: Inmate TPM Lookup | State Board of Pardons and Paroles

- [confirmed] Guidelines NOTICE disclaims Greenholtz-type liberty interest
  A NOTICE in the Georgia Parole Decision Guidelines System states that the Board reserves the right to deny parole even though guidelines criteria are met, and that it is not the Board's intention to create a liberty interest of the type described in Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates, 442 U.S. 1 (1979).
  Date: 1994-10-05
  Tags: parole,policy,legal
  Sources: Stephen Sultenfuss, Charles McMulling v. Wayne Snow, Jr., James T. Morris, Mobley Howell, Michael... – CourtListener.com

- [confirmed] Board FAQ: right to be considered, no liberty interest in release
  The Board of Pardons and Paroles states on its own FAQ page that most Georgia inmates have a right to be considered for parole, but they do not have a right or "liberty interest" which requires release on parole.
  Tags: parole,policy,legal
  Sources: Frequently Asked Questions | State Board of Pardons and Paroles

- [confirmed] Board FAQ: automatic reconsideration intervals (five years non-life, eight years life)
  The Board's FAQ page states that inmates serving non-life sentences who are denied parole will be automatically reconsidered by the Board at least every five years after becoming eligible for parole, and inmates serving life sentences who are denied parole will, by policy, be reconsidered for parole at regular intervals not to exceed eight years.
  Tags: parole,policy
  Sources: Frequently Asked Questions | State Board of Pardons and Paroles

- [confirmed] Board: TPM is not a final release decision
  The Board's "Parole Process in Georgia" page states that a TPM is not a final release decision, and at the TPM the Board will complete a final review of the offender's case file and determine whether to set a parole release date.
  Tags: parole,policy
  Sources: The Parole Process in Georgia | State Board of Pardons and Paroles

- [confirmed] Board rule 475-3-.05: inmates denied parole informed of reasons
  The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles' rules provide that the Board will inform inmates denied parole of the reasons for such denial without disclosing confidential sources of information or possibly discouraging diagnostic opinions (Rule 475-3-.05). In Turner, the Board informed the inmate that the reasons for denial were the circumstances and nature of his offense.
  Date: 1982-01-07
  Tags: parole,policy,legal
  Sources: Georgia State Board of Pardons & Paroles v. Turner, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1982-01-07 (court record via CourtListener)

- [reported] PPI criterion: presumptive parole worth 9 points
  The Prison Policy Initiative's parole grading report lists a scoring criterion that each state should have presumptive parole (9 pts.), described as a policy giving every incarcerated person a list of specific things they must do to make parole, all but guaranteeing their release at a predetermined date if they fulfill the state's requirements.
  Tags: parole,policy
  Sources: Grading the parole release systems of all 50 states | Prison Policy Initiative

- [confirmed] Board rule-making authority: may adopt rules not inconsistent with law
  The Board's rule on rule-making authority states that the Board may adopt and promulgate rules not inconsistent with the law.
  Tags: parole,policy,legal
  Sources: GA R&R - GAC - Chapter 475-3 RULES

QUOTES (3)
----------------------------------------
- [confirmed] Scalia concurrence in Dotson on habeas core
  Justice Scalia's concurrence in Dotson states agreement with the Court's holding that "[b]ecause neither prisoner's claim would necessarily spell speedier release, neither lies at 'the core of habeas corpus'" and both may be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: WILKINSON, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION, ET AL. v. DOTSON ET AL. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

- [confirmed] Hunstein dissent: state has no duty to establish parole; Georgia gives Board broad discretion
  Justice Hunstein, dissenting in Hamm v. Ray, wrote that a state may establish a parole system but has no duty to do so, and that Georgia has chosen to afford broad discretionary power and authority in the Board with respect to the grant of parole and the supervision of paroled prisoners.
  Date: 2000-05-30
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Hamm v. Ray, 2000-05-30 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Marshall dissent: parole release interest comparable to Morrissey, Scarpelli, Wolff
  Justice Marshall's dissent in Greenholtz argued that a criminal offender's interest in securing release on parole is directly comparable to the liberty interests recognized in Morrissey, Scarpelli, and Wolff.
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: John B. GREENHOLTZ, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. INMATES OF the NEBRASKA PENAL AND CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX et al. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

FINDINGS (11)
----------------------------------------
- [confirmed] Sultenfuss en banc court split 6-4 on state-law questions
  Judge Carnes's dissent in Sultenfuss states that the en banc court was sharply divided over the state-law questions, with six judges answering one way and four judges the other way.
  Date: 1994-10-05
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Stephen Sultenfuss, Charles McMulling v. Wayne Snow, Jr., James T. Morris, Mobley Howell, Michael... – CourtListener.com

- [confirmed] Williamson: parole is legislative grace
  The Hawaii Supreme Court stated that 'parole is a matter of legislative grace, and the denial of it to certain offenders is within legislative discretion,' quoting State v. Kumukau.
  Date: 2001-11-29
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: Williamson v. Hawai'i Paroling Authority, 2001-11-29 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] O'Connor dissent: liberty is more than statutory language
  Justice O'Connor's dissent in Board of Pardons v. Allen, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Scalia, stated that there is far more to liberty than interests conferred by language in state statutes.
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: BOARD OF PARDONS and Henry Burgess, Petitioners v. George ALLEN and Dale Jacobsen etc. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

- [reported] Vargas rests departure discretion on Board rule, not OCGA § 42-9-40 text
  Vargas v. Morris is the earliest opinion found stating that the Board reserved its discretion to depart from the parole guidelines recommendation; it rests that point on the Board's own rule (Rule 475-3-.05 (5)), not on the text of OCGA § 42-9-40, which it describes only as requiring the Board to establish and use a guidelines system.
  Date: 1996-01-08
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Vargas v. Morris, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1996-01-08 (court record via CourtListener)

- [reported] Ray v. Carthen earliest opinion calling tentative parole month a recommendation
  Ray v. Carthen (Supreme Court of Georgia) is the earliest opinion found calling the tentative parole month a 'recommendation' to the Board; it rests the sentence on the Board's rule 475-3-.05 (5) and on Daker v. Ray, Division 2.
  Date: 2002-09-16
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Ray v. Carthen, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2002-09-16 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Byrne holding quote: procedures deficient for lack of statement of reasons and opportunity to comment
  The New Jersey Supreme Court in Byrne wrote: 'We hold that its procedures are deficient in not requiring a statement of reasons for the finding that the punitive aspects of the sentence have not been fulfilled, and in not affording prisoners the opportunity to comment upon the reasons stated.'
  Date: 1983-05-11
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: New Jersey State Parole Board v. Byrne, 1983-05-11 (court record via CourtListener)

- [reported] 'Broad discretionary power and authority' language first appears in Hamm dissent
  The 'broad discretionary power and authority' sentence first appears, in the opinions searched, in the dissent in Hamm v. Ray (Supreme Court of Georgia), which rests it on OCGA §§ 42-9-20, 42-9-21, 42-9-40 and follows a citation to Greenholtz.
  Date: 2000-05-30
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Hamm v. Ray, 2000-05-30 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Board never adhered to recidivist parole-ineligibility statute § 17-10-7(c)
  In Metheny v. Hammonds (M.D. Ga.), the court stated that the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles never adhered to the recidivist parole-ineligibility statute, O.C.G.A. § 17-10-7(c), because, based on opinions of two attorneys general, the Board took the position that the legislature lacked authority to restrict its constitutionally granted parole authority by general law.
  Date: 1999-01-01
  Tags: parole,legal,policy
  Sources: Metheny v. Hammonds, M.D. Ga., 1999-03-24 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Breyer dissent: atypical and significant hardship standard
  Justice Breyer's dissent in Sandin states that the Court's standard requires 'atypical and significant hardship on the inmate' to exclude relatively minor matters from the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: Cinda SANDIN, Unit Team Manager, Halawa Correctional Facility, Petitioner, v. Demont R.D. CONNER et al. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

- [reported] § 3041(b)(1) current wording ('shall grant parole unless') differs from Swarthout v. Cooke's quoted 'shall set a release date unless'
  California Penal Code § 3041(b)(1) as currently published reads 'shall grant parole to an inmate unless it determines' that the gravity of the offense requires a longer period; this differs from the 'shall set a release date unless' wording Swarthout v. Cooke quoted from an earlier West edition.
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: California Code, PEN 3041

- [confirmed] Trantino followed Byrne: legislation shifts burden to State to prove recidivism
  In Trantino, the New Jersey Supreme Court followed New Jersey State Parole Bd. v. Byrne, 93 N.J. 192, 205, 460 A.2d 103 (1983), quoting: 'The legislation shifts the burden to the State to prove that the prisoner is a recidivist and should not be released.'
  Date: 2001-01-18
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Trantino v. New Jersey State Parole Board, 2001-01-18 (court record via CourtListener)

CASE DETAILS (6)
----------------------------------------
- [confirmed] Terry v. Hamrick: County-banishment sentence provision was attempt to control parole
  A sentence provision making a defendant's presence outside a designated county during the sentence term a violation of his parole was an attempt by the trial court to control parole conditions; because the Board holds executive power over parole terms and conditions, the provision violated the separation-of-powers clause and had to be vacated.
  Date: 2008-06-30
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Terry v. Hamrick, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2008-06-30 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Jones v. Ray affirmed dismissal of lifer's § 1983 due process claims
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a Georgia lifer's § 1983 due process claims against the Parole Board: Sultenfuss forecloses them because a Georgia inmate has no liberty interest in parole, and a false-information claim under Monroe v. Thigpen fails without evidence that the Board relied on false information. It also affirmed summary judgment on the ex post facto and equal protection claims.
  Date: 2001-11-01
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Larry Jones v. Walter S. Ray, Chairman, Bobby K. Whitworth, U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, 2001-11-01 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Stephens conviction affirmed, sentence vacated and remanded
  In Stephens v. State, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing because the trial court lacked authority to impose a Fourth Amendment waiver as a condition of parole.
  Date: 1993-03-08
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: Stephens v. State, Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1993-03-08 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Ray v. Barber: Mandamus affirmed directing Board to consider prisoner for parole
  In Ray v. Barber, the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed a trial court order directing the Parole Board to give a prisoner consideration for parole where the Board had failed to timely consider him, while denying all other relief sought (including a grant of parole or a tentative parole date).
  Date: 2001-06-04
  Tags: parole,legal
  Sources: Ray v. Barber, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2001-06-04 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Williamson disposition: reversed ICA, remanded as HRPP Rule 40
  On certiorari, the Supreme Court of Hawai'i held that Hawai'i's statutes do not bar the Hawai'i Paroling Authority from setting a prisoner's minimum term equal to the maximum sentence, so a prisoner has no statutory right to a shorter minimum term. It reversed the Intermediate Court of Appeals, vacated the circuit court judgment, and remanded with instructions to process the petition as an HRPP Rule 40 petition. Two justices dissented.
  Date: 2001-11-29
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: Williamson v. Hawai'i Paroling Authority, 2001-11-29 (court record via CourtListener)

- [confirmed] Jago facts: parole rescinded for untruthfulness about embezzlement amount
  The Ohio Adult Parole Authority rescinded, before actual release, its earlier decision to grant parole after learning that the respondent had been untruthful in his interview and parole plan, specifically regarding the amount he had embezzled.
  Tags: legal,parole
  Sources: A. R. JAGO, Former Superintendent, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, et al. v. George D. VAN CUREN. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

DATA GAPS (1)
----------------------------------------
- [reported] No match in Georgia parole board rules for appeal or judicial review provisions
  A search of GA R&R - GAC - Chapter 475-3 RULES (rules.sos.ga.gov/gac/475-3, retrieved 2026-10-28) for the terms 'appeal' and 'judicial review' returned no match, indicating the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles rules chapter does not use those terms.
  Tags: legal,parole,policy
  Sources: GA R&R - GAC - Chapter 475-3 RULES

STATISTICS (1)
----------------------------------------
- [reported] Sixteen states abolished or curtailed discretionary parole
  The Prison Policy Initiative's parole grading report states that 'Sixteen states have abolished or severely curtailed discretionary parole, and the remaining states range from having a system of presumptive parole, where when certain conditions are met, release on parole is guaranteed, to having policies and practices that make earning release almost impossible.'
  Value: 16.0 states
  Tags: parole,policy
  Sources: Grading the parole release systems of all 50 states | Prison Policy Initiative

KEY ENTITIES (296)
----------------------------------------
- 1983 Georgia Constitution [legislation]: State constitution whose Art. IV provisions on the Board of Pardons and Paroles are central to Charron. (aka: Georgia Constitution of 1983)
- 1994 Georgia Constitutional Amendment on Parole [legislation]: Constitutional amendment proposed in 1994 Ga. Laws 2015-18 and approved in the November 1994 general election, giving the General Assembly clear authority to limit the Board's parole power by two-thirds general law. (aka: Amendment to Ga. Const. art. IV, § II, ¶ II, 1994 Ga. Laws 2015-18)
- 2018 PA 0339 [legislation]: 2018 Michigan public act adding guideline-departure standard and stating 'There is no entitlement to parole'. (aka: Act No. 339, 2018 PA 0339)
- 2018 PA 339 [legislation]: Michigan public act amending MCL 791.233e to require substantial and compelling objective reasons, stated in writing, for departures from parole guidelines. (aka: Act No. 339, 2018 PA 0339)
- 2022 PA 28 [legislation]: Michigan public act amending MCL 791.233e(14) regarding applicability of the departure amendments.
- 25 LC 48 1390 [legislation]: Proposed 2025 Georgia legislation that would require written findings of fact for the Board's decision to deny parole or delay a tentative parole release month.
- 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [legislation]: Federal civil rights statute providing a cause of action for deprivation of constitutional rights under color of state law. (aka: Civil Rights Act of 1871, Section 1983)
- 61 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6139 [legislation]: Pennsylvania statute requiring the parole board to provide reasons and areas of emphasis when denying parole. (aka: Section 6139.0 - Title 61)
- Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles [organization]: Alabama state agency responsible for parole decisions. (aka: Alabama Board)
- Anthony McClendon El v. Heidi Washington [case]: Sixth Circuit case (2025) following Board of Pardons v. Allen and Olim v. Wakinekona on parole liberty interest. (aka: McClendon El v. Washington)
- Antonin Scalia [person]: Supreme Court Justice who concurred in Wilkinson v. Dotson. (aka: Justice Scalia)
- Aragon v. Martinez [case]: New Mexico Supreme Court decision (2025) following Olim v. Wakinekona and referencing 17 objective criteria for the Parole Board.
- Armstrong v. Superior Court [case]: California Court of Appeal 2026 decision explaining In re Rosenkrantz in a due process challenge.
- Art. IV, Sec. II, Par. II(a) of the Georgia Constitution of 1983 [legislation]: Georgia constitutional provision vesting parole discretion in the State Board of Pardons and Paroles, cited in Manley v. State. (aka: Georgia Constitution of 1983, Art. IV, Sec. II, Par. II(a))
- Ballentine v. Broxton [case]: 2025 Fifth Circuit decision following Woodard.
- Barna v. Travis [case]: 2001 Second Circuit decision quoting N.Y. Executive Law § 259-i(2)(c)(A) on discretionary parole release standards.
- Board of Pardons and Paroles [organization]: Georgia state agency involved in corrections spending, mentioned as part of the broader criminal justice corrections apparatus exceeding $2 billion.
- Board of Pardons v. Allen [case]: 482 U.S. 369 (1987); Supreme Court case on Montana parole statute using mandatory language creating a presumption of release, distinguished in Sultenfuss.
- Board Rule 475-3-.05 [legislation]: Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles rule governing parole consideration, including eight-year reconsideration interval for life-sentenced inmates and crime severity level assignments. (aka: 475-3-.05 Parole Consideration, Rule 475-3-.05(2))
- Boothe v. Hammock [case]: Second Circuit case (1979) discussing Greenholtz and New York parole statute. (aka: Michael Boothe v. Edward Hammock, Chairman, New York State Board of Parole)
- Bowers v. Hardwick [case]: U.S. Supreme Court decision (1986-09-11) referencing Riley v. Garrett on the scope of Georgia's sodomy statute § 26-5901.
- Bradshaw v. State [case]: 2008 Georgia Supreme Court case stating the Parole Board's power is constitutionally vested and discretionary.
- Brown v. Barrow [case]: Eleventh Circuit decision (2008) citing Justice and Johnson v. Griffin on mandamus as the proper means to challenge parole decisions.
- Brown v. Crawford [case]: 2011 Georgia Supreme Court decision applying OCGA § 42-12-8 to non-prisoner appeals of prisoner-originated actions.
- C. W. v. Steve Smith [case]: Eleventh Circuit decision (2026-06-17) explaining Jones v. Ray in disparate-treatment jurisprudence.
- California Board of Parole Hearings [organization]: California state agency that conducts parole suitability hearings and sets parole conditions.
- California Board of Prison Terms [organization]: California parole authority referenced in Swarthout v. Cooke. (aka: Board of Prison Terms)
- California Department of Corrections v. Morales [case]: U.S. Supreme Court decision (514 U.S. 499, 1995) on parole liberty interests, cited in Porter v. Ray.
- California Penal Code § 3041 [legislation]: California statute governing parole suitability hearings and release dates, using mandatory language that courts have found creates a liberty interest in parole. (aka: PEN 3041, Cal. Penal Code § 3041)
- California Penal Code § 3041(b) [legislation]: California statute providing that the parole board shall grant parole unless public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration. (aka: Cal. Penal Code § 3041(b))
- Campbell v. State [case]: 1997 Supreme Court of Georgia decision addressing the Sentence Reform Act and OCGA § 17-10-6.1 parole bars for serious violent felonies.
- Carlton Vur Adams v. Parole Board [case]: 2022 Michigan Court of Appeals decision on liberty interest in parole and statutory limitations on discretion.
- Carvin Thomas v. Richard Montgomery [case]: Sixth Circuit decision (2025-06-09) explaining Board of Pardons v. Allen.
- Chappell v. Mandeville [case]: Ninth Circuit decision (2013) explaining McQuillion v. Duncan on Sandin and parole. (aka: Rex Chappell v. R. Mandeville)
- Charron v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles [case]: 253 Ga. 274, 319 S.E.2d 453 (1984); Georgia Supreme Court decision on the independence of the Parole Board and constitutional limits on legislative control of its discretion. (aka: Charron)
- Colorado Revised Statutes § 17-22.5-404.5 [legislation]: Colorado statute establishing a presumption of parole for eligible inmates meeting enumerated conditions, with a 90-day hearing requirement and preserved parole board discretion. (aka: C.R.S. 17-22.5-404.5)
- Colorado State Board of Parole [organization]: Colorado parole authority whose decisions are discretionary and generally not subject to judicial review. (aka: Board of Parole)
- Colorado Supreme Court [organization]: Highest court of Colorado; decided In re Question Concerning State Judicial Review of Parole Denial.
- Connecticut Bd. of Pardons v. Dumschat [case]: Supreme Court decision on liberty interests in commutation of sentences. (aka: Dumschat)
- Connecticut Board of Pardons v. Dumschat [case]: U.S. Supreme Court case (1981) holding that Connecticut's commutation statute created no liberty interest in commutation beyond the right to seek it. (aka: Dumschat)
- Cook v. State [case]: Georgia Supreme Court decision holding that a motion for out-of-time appeal is not a legally cognizable vehicle for seeking relief for constitutional violations in the trial court
- Cotton v. Mississippi Parole Bd. [case]: 2003 Mississippi Supreme Court decision noting absolute parole discretion affords no constitutionally recognized liberty interest.
- Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [organization]: Federal appellate court that decided Jones v. Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles (1995). (aka: 11th Cir.)
- Court of Appeals of Georgia [organization]: Intermediate appellate court of Georgia; issued the Mincey v. State decision.
- Crump v. Lafler [case]: 657 F.3d 393 (6th Cir. 2011); held adoption of specific parole guidelines since Sweeton does not create a liberty interest in parole.
- Cruz v. State [case]: 2012 Georgia Court of Appeals decision stating parole is not guaranteed. (aka: Sabino Cruz v. State)
- Dagro Assoc., LLC v. City of Yonkers [case]: 2026 New York Appellate Division decision applying the two-step liberty/procedure framework from Kentucky Dep't of Corrections v. Thompson.
- Daker v. Ray [case]: Georgia Supreme Court case limiting mandamus availability when habeas corpus is available as an alternative remedy.
- Dale Scott Davies v. Cook County Superior Court [case]: Court of Appeals of Georgia 2018 decision following Daker v. Ray; held trial court correctly denied prisoner's request.
- Deckard v. Cotton [case]: Nebraska Supreme Court decision holding the Board's power to discharge from parole was discretionary, so no clear ministerial duty existed.
- Denson v. State [case]: Georgia Court of Appeals case (2004) rejecting a challenge to O.C.G.A. § 42-1-13 as depriving substantial rights and increasing punishment.
- Dickerson v. Augusta-Richmond County Commission [case]: 1999 Georgia Supreme Court decision citing Vargas v. Morris.
- Drogheo v. Fieno [case]: District Court, W.D. New York, decision (2011) following Jones v. Ray on conclusory allegations of false information by a parole board. (aka: Drogheo v. FIENO)
- Dudley v. Boise State University [case]: Ninth Circuit decision (2025-08-27) following Olim v. Wakinekona.
- Duncan v. Ricketts [case]: Case referenced in Justice v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles; the court held it does not permit habeas corpus to complain of parole denial.
- Eidson v. State [case]: Georgia Court of Appeals case (2003) explaining Hamm v. Ray on the characteristics of an ex post facto law.
- Eleventh Circuit [organization]: Federal appellate court with jurisdiction over Georgia, Florida and Alabama; author of Chandler v. Crosby. (aka: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit)
- Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals [organization]: Federal appeals court controlling litigation from Georgia, Florida, and Alabama; adopted 'ordinary firmness' test for retaliation claims (aka: Eleventh Circuit)
- Evitts v. Lucey [case]: Supreme Court decision cited in Woodard on protected liberty interests.
- Filgueiras v. Newark Pub. Schools [case]: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division decision (2012) discussing state-created liberty interests and quoting New Jersey State Parole Bd. v. Byrne.
- Freeman v. State [case]: Georgia Supreme Court decision cited for the proposition that the General Assembly is constitutionally empowered to determine parole eligibility by statute. (aka: 264 Ga. 27, 29 (1994))
- Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 475-3-.05 [legislation]: Georgia Parole Board regulation on parole consideration; authority note cites Ga. Const. 1983, Art. 4, § 2, ¶ 2 and O.C.G.A. §§ 42-9-1, 42-9-40, 42-9-45. (aka: Parole Consideration)
- Ga. L. 1943, p. 185 [legislation]: Original Act of the Georgia General Assembly creating the State Board of Pardons and Paroles and setting conditions for probation, parole, and clemency. (aka: 1943 Act creating the State Board of Pardons and Paroles)
- Ga. L. 1974, p. 474 [legislation]: 1974 amending Act to the State Board of Pardons and Paroles Act adding discretionary pardon/parole for aged or disabled persons and re-setting-out the parole-presumption clause.
- Ga. L. 1975, p. 795 [legislation]: 1975 amending Act re-setting-out the parole-presumption clause requiring a Board finding of reasonable probability of law-abiding conduct.
- Ga. L. 1993, p. 1656 [legislation]: 1993 Act creating life without parole as a sentencing option for death-eligible offenses and barring parole for natural life absent an innocence determination. (aka: 1993 life without parole Act)
- Ga. L. 1995, p. 625 [legislation]: 1995 Act containing O.C.G.A. § 42-9-44(a) on written parole conditions.
- Galbraith v. Hooper [case]: Fifth Circuit decision (2025) explaining Wilkinson v. Dotson in the context of prisoners seeking parole again after a five-year deferral.
- Garner v. Jones [case]: 529 U.S. 244 (2000). Applied the ex post facto test from California Department of Corrections v. Morales (1995) to the Georgia Board's lengthened lifer reconsideration interval; reversed an Eleventh Circuit ruling for the prisoner and remanded.
- Garnett v. Hamrick [case]: Supreme Court of Georgia 2006 decision following Daker v. Ray; held plaintiff with a specific legal remedy was not entitled to mandamus relief.
- General Assembly of Georgia [organization]: Georgia's state legislature, which has authority to determine parole eligibility and, after the 1994 constitutional amendment, to limit the Board's parole authority by general law approved by two-thirds vote. (aka: General Assembly, Georgia Legislature)
- Georgia Administrative Procedure Act [legislation]: Georgia statute governing agency rulemaking and contested cases; its 'agency' definition in OCGA § 50-13-2 excludes the State Board of Pardons and Paroles. (aka: APA)
- Georgia Amendment 2 [legislation]: 1994 legislatively referred constitutional amendment approved by voters, relating to mandatory sentences and restrictions on pardons and paroles. (aka: Mandatory Sentences and Restrictions on Pardons and Paroles Amendment (1994))
- Georgia Amendment 3 (August 1943) [legislation]: Constitutional amendment taking pardon power from the Governor and creating the State Board of Pardons and Paroles. (aka: Board of Pardons and Paroles Measure)
- Georgia Attorney General [organization]: Georgia's chief law enforcement officer, member of the State Bar of Georgia Board of Governors, with supervisory authority over the prosecutorial function including power to appoint substitute prosecutors under O.C.G.A. § 15-18-5. (aka: AG)
- Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles [organization]: Georgia's parole authority, operates reentry services including Reentry Partnership Housing (RPH)
- Georgia Constitution [legislation]: The state constitution that provides for the establishment of the State Board of Pardons and Paroles and defines its authority. (aka: State Constitution)
- Georgia Constitution Article IV, Section II, Paragraph II [legislation]: Constitutional provision amended in 1994 to authorize mandatory service of sentences and life without parole, with the Parole Board barred from considering affected persons for pardon, parole, or commutation. (aka: Article IV, Sec. II, Para. II)
- Georgia Department of Corrections [organization]: State agency responsible for operating Georgia's prison system. Subject of federal DOJ investigation in 2022-2023 for constitutional violations including food-related deaths. (aka: GDC)
- Georgia General Assembly [organization]: Georgia state legislature. Has not advanced legislation to address prison labor compensation or remove the state's slavery exception. A two-thirds vote in both chambers would be required to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot.
- Georgia Office of the Attorney General [organization]: State legal office that issued 1984 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 84-56 permitting non-M.D. crime-lab personnel to serve as medical examiners. (aka: Georgia AG)
- Georgia State Board of Pardons & Paroles v. Turner [case]: 1982 Georgia Supreme Court decision regarding the Board's rule requiring inmates be informed of reasons for parole denial. (aka: Turner)
- Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles [organization]: Georgia state agency responsible for parole decisions
- Georgia Supreme Court [organization]: Highest court in Georgia; issued Cook v. State ruling and denied Bharadia's DNA evidence claim
- Green v. State [case]: 1979 Georgia Supreme Court decision applying issue preclusion.
- Greene v. Georgia Pardons and Parole Bd. [case]: 1992 N.D. Georgia decision discussing limits on legislative power over the Board's substantive parole discretion.
- Greenholtz v. Inmates [case]: U.S. Supreme Court case establishing minimal due process procedures for parole denials. (aka: Greenholtz)
- Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex [case]: 1979 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that a state may establish a parole system but has no duty to do so, and may define parole conditions broadly. (aka: Greenholtz)
- Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex [case]: U.S. Supreme Court case holding there is no constitutional or inherent right to conditional release before expiration of a valid sentence; Nebraska's mandatory parole statute created a liberty interest. (aka: Greenholtz)
- Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex [case]: 1979 U.S. Supreme Court case holding no constitutional right to parole release but establishing framework for statutory liberty interests. (aka: Greenholtz)
- Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex [case]: U.S. Supreme Court parole liberty-interest decision; searched without match for 'statistical' and 'trivialize'. (aka: 442 U.S. 1 (1979))
- Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates [case]: U.S. Supreme Court precedent on liberty interests in parole, referenced in the Board's Guidelines NOTICE. (aka: Greenholtz, 442 U.S. 1 (1979))
- Greenman v. Massachusetts Parole Board [case]: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision (1989-07-11) quoting G.L. c. 127, § 130 on the discretionary standard for granting parole.
- Gregory v. Sexual Offender Registration Review Board [case]: 2016 Georgia Supreme Court decision applying Greenholtz to a liberty-interest dispute over sexually dangerous predator classification.
- Gutierrez v. Saenz [case]: 2025 U.S. Supreme Court decision that explained Woodard and noted O'Connor's open question on clemency safeguards.
- Hamm v. Ray [case]: 2000 Georgia Supreme Court decision holding that only the Board may impose parole conditions and that a parolee could obtain mandamus to remove conditions imposed by a parole officer.
- Hammond v. Hall [case]: Eleventh Circuit decision (2009) explaining Charron's construction of O.C.G.A. § 42-9-45(b) as precatory.
- Harris v. Evans [case]: Eleventh Circuit decision (1991) holding the power to grant parole is discretionary with the Board. (aka: Phillip Wayne Harris v. David Evans)
- Hawaii Paroling Authority [organization]: Hawaii state agency responsible for parole and minimum-term determinations. (aka: HPA)
- Hawaii Revised Statutes § 706-670 [legislation]: Hawaii sentencing statute governing parole; subsection (1) mandates parole for low-risk assessed individuals upon minimum-term completion and requires a validated risk assessment. (aka: HRS § 706-670, Chapter 706)
- Heard v. Georgia State Board of Pardons & Paroles [case]: Eleventh Circuit 2007 decision reaffirming that Georgia's parole system creates no liberty interest in parole. (aka: Heard v. Georgia State Board of Pardons & Paroles)
- Hewitt v. Helms [case]: U.S. Supreme Court case (1983) that made explicit what was implicit in Greenholtz regarding mandatory language and substantive predicates. (aka: Hewitt)
- Howard v. Coonrod [case]: 134 F.4th 1136 (11th Cir. 2025). Ruling under which Buttrum's due-process claim was dismissed.
- HRS 706-669 [legislation]: Hawaii statute setting procedural protections for parole hearings, including notice, counsel, and recording. (aka: Hawaii Revised Statutes § 706-669)
- Humphreys v. Commissioner, Georgia Department of Corrections [case]: 2025 Eleventh Circuit decision explaining Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard and Justice O'Connor's binding opinion. (aka: Stacey Humphreys v. Commissioner, Georgia Department of Corrections)
- In re Lawrence [case]: California Supreme Court decision (2008) clarifying that the 'some evidence' standard asks whether evidence supports a conclusion the inmate is currently dangerous, and rejecting reliance on offense gravity alone. (aka: Lawrence)
- In re McGhee [case]: California Court of Appeal (5th District) 2019 decision citing Daker v. Ray on parole eligibility.
- In re Palmer [case]: California Court of Appeal (5th District) 2018 decision following In re Lawrence on parole denial standards.
- In re Parole of Richard Allen McBrayer [case]: 2023 Michigan Supreme Court decision holding a parole grant is not an automatic abuse of discretion even where substantial and compelling reasons to deny exist, and that the 2018 amendments apply only to controlling offenses on or after December 12, 2018. (aka: McBrayer)
- In re Poole [case]: California Court of Appeal (5th District) 2018 decision following In re Lawrence on 'some evidence' standard.
- In Re Rosenkrantz [case]: California Supreme Court decision (2002) holding prisoners possess a protected liberty interest in parole decisions and that a Governor's parole decision is subject to limited 'some evidence' judicial review. (aka: Rosenkrantz)
- In re Van Houten [case]: California Court of Appeal 2023 decision following In re Rosenkrantz.
- Jago v. Van Curen [case]: U.S. Supreme Court case (1981) holding that Ohio's rescission of shock parole without a hearing did not violate due process because Ohio law created no protected liberty interest in parole.
- James Huston Jones v. Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles [case]: 1995 Eleventh Circuit decision discussing Charron's construction of a parole provision as precatory. (aka: Jones v. Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles)
- Jennings v. State [case]: 2025 Florida Supreme Court decision explaining Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard. (aka: Bryan Fredrick Jennings v. State of Florida)
- John Paul Stevens [person]: U.S. Supreme Court Justice who authored the dissent in Dumschat. (aka: Justice Stevens)
- Johnson v. Griffin [case]: 1999 Supreme Court of Georgia decision holding parole-eligibility claims are not cognizable in habeas corpus and that mandamus against the Parole Board is the proper remedy.
- Jones v. Board of Parole [case]: 2026 Oregon Court of Appeals decision following Greenholtz on due process sufficiency.
- Jones v. Ray [case]: Eleventh Circuit decision, 279 F.3d 944 (2001), holding a prisoner does not state a due process claim by conclusory allegation of false information by a parole board.
- Judge Barkett [person]: Eleventh Circuit judge who joined Judge Clark's dissent in Sultenfuss.
- Judge Carnes [person]: Eleventh Circuit judge who dissented in Sultenfuss on failure to certify state-law questions to the Georgia Supreme Court.
- Judge Clark [person]: Senior Eleventh Circuit judge who dissented in Sultenfuss, joined by Judges Kravitch, Hatchett and Barkett.
- Judge Hatchett [person]: Eleventh Circuit judge who joined Judge Clark's dissent in Sultenfuss.
- Judge Kravitch [person]: Eleventh Circuit judge who joined Judge Clark's dissent in Sultenfuss.
- Justice O'Connor [person]: U.S. Supreme Court Justice who dissented in Board of Pardons v. Allen. (aka: Sandra Day O'Connor)
- Justice v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles [case]: 1975 Supreme Court of Georgia decision holding the Parole Board's powers discretionary, mandamus unavailable absent gross abuse of discretion, and habeas corpus unavailable to complain of parole denial.
- Justice v. State Board of Pardons and Paroles [case]: 1975 Georgia Supreme Court decision cited in Lewis v. Griffin regarding review of Parole Board discretion.
- Kentucky Dep't of Corrections v. Thompson [case]: U.S. Supreme Court decision (490 U.S. 454) setting out the two-step liberty/procedure inquiry cited in Dagro. (aka: Thompson)
- Kentucky Department of Corrections v. Thompson [case]: U.S. Supreme Court decision (1989) holding that state regulations create a liberty interest only with 'explicitly mandatory language' plus 'specified substantive predicates'; Kentucky visitation regulations created no liberty interest. (aka: Kentucky Dept. of Corrections v. Thompson, Thompson)
- Lamm v. Barber [case]: Colorado Supreme Court 1977 decision (192 Colo. 511, 565 P.2d 538) limiting judicial review of parole decisions.
- Larry Jones v. Walter S. Ray [case]: Eleventh Circuit 2001 decision affirming dismissal of a Georgia lifer's due process, ex post facto, and equal protection claims against the Parole Board. (aka: Jones v. Ray, 279 F.3d 946)
- Leis v. Flynt [case]: U.S. Supreme Court case cited in Dumschat for an estoppel point.
- Lewis v. Griffin [case]: 1989 Supreme Court of Georgia decision stating that success against the Parole Board requires demonstrating gross abuse of discretion; cited in Johnson v. Griffin.
- Luna Gutierrez v. Noem [case]: District Court for the District of Columbia case (2025) discussing Wilkinson v. Dotson and distinguishing Sandin v. Conner in the immigration detention context.
- Mahn v. Gunter [case]: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 1992 decision quoting Colo. Rev. Stat. § 17-2-201(5)(a) on Board's sole parole power. (aka: Donald Arthur Mahn v. Frank Gunter)
- Manley v. State [case]: 2010 Georgia Supreme Court decision holding parole discretion is vested solely in the State Board of Pardons and Paroles.
- Marks v. State [case]: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals decision (2026-04-23) following Williamson v. Hawai'i Paroling Authority.
- Mason v. Hawaii Paroling Authority [case]: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals decision (2021-02-05) explaining Williamson v. Hawai'i Paroling Authority.
- Massachusetts General Laws c. 127, § 130 [legislation]: Massachusetts statute providing that parole is not granted merely as a reward for good conduct but only where the board finds a reasonable probability of law-abiding release compatible with society's welfare. (aka: G.L. c. 127, § 130)
- Matter of Brown v. New York State DOCCS, Exec. Clemency Bur. [case]: New York Appellate Division decision (2025) holding no protected liberty interest in clemency review, following Connecticut Board of Pardons v. Dumschat.
- Matter of Cargill v. Howard [case]: New York Appellate Division, Third Department, decision (2026) applying Sandin v. Conner to a tier II hearing and loss of privileges.
- Matter of Copeland v. Towns [case]: 2025 New York Appellate Division decision quoting Greenholtz on absence of constitutional right to conditional release.
- McClendon El v Washington [case]: 6th Cir. 2025 decision cited in Michigan's appellate benchbook for the proposition that Michigan law gives its parole board discretion eliminating any liberty interest in parole.
- McDermott v. McDonald [case]: 2001 Montana Supreme Court case holding only pre-1989 offenders retain liberty interest in parole.
- MCL 791.233e [legislation]: Michigan statute governing parole guidelines and departures, including subsections (6), (7), and (14). (aka: Michigan Compiled Laws §791.233e)
- MCL 791.234 [legislation]: Michigan statute providing that release on parole is discretionary with the parole board and that parole grants are appealable by prosecutor or victim. (aka: Michigan Compiled Laws §791.234)
- MCL 791.235 [legislation]: Michigan statute providing, at subsection (1), that 'There is no entitlement to parole.' (aka: Michigan Compiled Laws §791.235)
- McQuillion v. Duncan [case]: Ninth Circuit case (2002) holding that California's parole scheme gives rise to a cognizable liberty interest in release on parole, requiring 'some evidence' for rescission. (aka: Carl D. McQuillion v. William Duncan)
- Metheny v. Hammonds [case]: M.D. Ga. 1999 decision stating the Board of Pardons and Paroles never adhered to O.C.G.A. § 17-10-7(c) based on attorney general opinions that the legislature could not restrict its constitutional parole authority by general law.
- Michael Hester v. Chester County, Tenn. [case]: Sixth Circuit decision (2025-12-19) applying Swarthout, Jago, and Greenholtz to a Tennessee parole claim. (aka: Hester v. Chester County, Hester)
- Michigan Court of Appeals [organization]: Intermediate appellate court in Michigan; decided Carlton Vur Adams v. Parole Board (2022).
- Michigan Court Rule 7.104(D) [legislation]: Michigan court rule allowing prosecutor and victim to appeal a Parole Board decision to grant parole. (aka: MCR 7.104(D))
- Michigan Court Rule 7.118 [legislation]: Michigan court rule governing appeals from the Michigan Parole Board; no appeal of right and only prosecutor or victim may seek leave. (aka: Rule 7.118)
- Michigan Legislature [organization]: Michigan's legislative body; enacted 2018 PA 339 and 2022 PA 28 amending MCL 791.233e.
- Michigan Parole Board [organization]: Michigan body with discretionary authority over prisoner release on parole; its decisions are subject to limited appellate and judicial review. (aka: Parole Board)
- Michigan Supreme Court [organization]: Michigan's highest court; decided In re Parole of Richard Allen McBrayer (2023).
- Miller v. Oregon Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision [case]: 2011 Ninth Circuit decision explaining McQuillion v. Duncan and applying Greenholtz and Allen to California's parole scheme. (aka: Miller v. OREGON BD. OF PAROLE SUPERVISION)
- Mississippi Parole Board [organization]: Mississippi parole authority with absolute discretion under Miss. Code Ann. § 47-7-5.
- Mississippi Supreme Court [organization]: Highest court in Mississippi; issued concurring opinion in Cotton v. Mississippi Parole Board (2003).
- Monroe v. Thigpen [case]: Eleventh Circuit decision recognizing that use of false information in a parole file can violate due process. (aka: 932 F.2d 1437 (11th Cir. 1991))
- Montana Board of Pardons and Parole [organization]: Montana parole authority governed by section 46-23-201 MCA. (aka: Montana Board)
- Montana Code Annotated 46-23-201 [legislation]: Montana statute governing eligibility for nonmedical parole, currently using discretionary 'may' language. (aka: MCA 46-23-201)
- Montana Legislature [organization]: Amended section 46-23-201 MCA in 1989 to change 'shall release' to 'may release'.
- Montana Supreme Court [organization]: Highest court in Montana, which decided McDermott v. McDonald.
- Moore v. Ray [case]: 1998 Supreme Court of Georgia decision upholding the recidivist parole-ineligibility statute and addressing Attorney General opinions.
- Morrissey v. Brewer [case]: Supreme Court case recognizing a liberty interest in parole revocation, cited in Marshall's Greenholtz dissent. (aka: Morrissey)
- N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.53 [legislation]: New Jersey parole release statute setting the standard for release at primary parole eligibility. (aka: New Jersey Statutes Title 30 § 4-123.53)
- N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.53(a) [legislation]: New Jersey parole statute providing release at eligibility unless a substantial likelihood of crime is shown by a preponderance of the evidence. (aka: New Jersey Parole Act, 1979 Act)
- N.Y. Executive Law § 259-i(2)(c)(A) [legislation]: New York statute governing discretionary parole release, quoted in Barna v. Travis.
- Neb. Rev. Stat. § 83-1,110 [legislation]: Nebraska statute providing that every committed offender shall be eligible for parole after serving one-half the minimum term. (aka: 83-1,110)
- Neb. Rev. Stat. § 83-1,114 [legislation]: Nebraska statute providing that the Board of Parole shall order release unless it finds substantial risk of nonconformity or that continued treatment will substantially enhance capacity for law-abiding life. (aka: 83-1,114, Nebraska parole-deferment statute, Nebraska parole-release statute)
- Nebraska Board of Parole [organization]: Nebraska agency that makes parole release decisions under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 83-1,114. (aka: Board of Parole)
- Nebraska Legislature [organization]: Nebraska's legislative body, which has amended the parole-deferment statute over time.
- Nebraska Supreme Court [organization]: The highest court in Nebraska, which decided Poindexter v. Houston.
- New Jersey State Parole Bd. v. Byrne [case]: 1983 New Jersey Supreme Court decision cited in Acoli and State v. Cook regarding parole and due process standards. (aka: Byrne)
- New Jersey State Parole Board [organization]: New Jersey parole authority, party in Byrne and Trantino. (aka: Parole Board)
- New Jersey State Parole Board v. Byrne [case]: New Jersey Supreme Court decision (1983-05-11) holding the 'shall ... unless' parole statute creates a federally protected liberty interest requiring a statement of reasons and opportunity to respond. (aka: Byrne)
- New York Board of Parole [organization]: New York state agency subject to statutory requirements under N.Y. Executive Law §§ 259-c and 259-i. (aka: Board of Parole)
- New York State Board of Parole [organization]: New York parole authority referenced in S2423. (aka: Board of Parole)
- Norberto Torres v. Kent Brookman [case]: Seventh Circuit decision (2025-10-17) applying Wilkinson v. Austin to liberty interests from prison conditions.
- O.C.G.A. § 17-10-6.1 [legislation]: Statute listing seven serious violent felonies with mandatory minimum sentences during which parole is unavailable. (aka: OCGA § 17-10-6.1)
- O.C.G.A. § 17-10-7(c) [legislation]: Georgia statute imposing parole ineligibility for recidivists that the Board of Pardons and Paroles declined to apply based on attorney general opinions. (aka: recidivist parole-ineligibility statute)
- O.C.G.A. § 42-1-13 [legislation]: Georgia statute referenced in Denson v. State regarding enforcement and punishment.
- O.C.G.A. § 42-9-40 [legislation]: Georgia statute requiring adoption of the parole guideline system; qualified in Sultenfuss by § 42-9-42(c). (aka: Section 42-9-40, O.C.G.A.)
- O.C.G.A. § 42-9-42 [legislation]: Georgia statute providing that no inmate shall be placed on parole unless the Board finds a reasonable probability of law-abiding conduct and compatibility with welfare; read in Sultenfuss as a presumption against parole. (aka: Section 42-9-42, O.C.G.A., O.C.G.A. Sec. 42-9-42(c))
- O.C.G.A. § 42-9-42(c) [legislation]: Georgia statute governing parole release; construed in Sultenfuss as creating a presumption against parole. (aka: Section 42-9-42, O.C.G.A.)
- O.C.G.A. § 42-9-43 [legislation]: Georgia statute requiring the Board to consider all pertinent information and issue findings and determinations with notice to specified parties. (aka: § 42-9-43)
- O.C.G.A. § 42-9-44(a) [legislation]: Georgia statute requiring the Board to specify parole terms and conditions in writing and provide a certified copy to the parolee.
- O.C.G.A. § 42-9-45 [legislation]: Georgia statute governing automatic initial parole consideration timing and eligibility thresholds, including violent-crime and felony provisions. (aka: Code Section 42-9-45)
- O.C.G.A. § 42-9-45(b) [legislation]: Georgia statute construed by the Georgia Supreme Court in Charron as precatory rather than mandatory. (aka: § 42-9-45(b))
- O.C.G.A. § 42-9-46 [legislation]: Georgia statute authorizing early parole consideration with 10-day written notice to sentencing judge, district attorney, and victims. (aka: Code Section 42-9-46)
- O.C.G.A. § 42-9-53 [legislation]: Georgia statute making Board records 'confidential state secrets until declassified by the board.'
- O.C.G.A. § 50-13-2 [legislation]: Georgia Administrative Procedure Act definition of 'agency,' which expressly excludes the Board of Corrections and its penal institutions.
- O.C.G.A. § 9-6-21 [legislation]: Georgia statute governing mandamus, providing that mandamus shall not lie to a public officer with absolute discretion absent gross abuse of discretion. (aka: Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 9-6-21, Code 1933, § 64-102)
- OCGA § 17-10-6.1 [legislation]: Statute defining serious violent felonies and mandating full sentence service with no parole, suspension, reduction, or commutation.
- OCGA § 17-10-7(c) [legislation]: Recidivist sentencing statute providing since 1953 that recidivists are not eligible for parole until the maximum sentence is served. (aka: OCGA § 17-10-7(b) (pre-1994 designation))
- OCGA § 42-12-8 [legislation]: Georgia statute governing appeals in actions filed by prisoners, applied in Brown v. Crawford.
- OCGA § 42-9-1 [legislation]: Georgia statute declaring that the duties, powers, and functions of the State Board of Pardons and Paroles are executive in character and that no other body may usurp its functions.
- OCGA § 42-9-1 et seq. [legislation]: Georgia statutory provisions governing parole, cited in Manley v. State.
- OCGA § 42-9-20 [legislation]: Georgia statute granting the Board the duty to determine which inmates may be released on parole and to fix the time and conditions thereof.
- OCGA § 42-9-40(a) [legislation]: Georgia statute requiring the Board to adopt, implement, and maintain a parole guidelines system for determining parole action for all inmates except those serving life sentences.
- OCGA § 42-9-42 [legislation]: Georgia statute cited in Lewis v. Griffin regarding actions against the Parole Board and gross abuse of discretion (subsections (c),(d)). (aka: O.C.G.A. § 42-9-42)
- OCGA § 42-9-44 [legislation]: Georgia statute providing procedures for placing a person on parole, requiring the Board to adopt general rules concerning terms and conditions of parole.
- OCGA § 42-9-45(b) [legislation]: Statute setting minimum time served before parole eligibility. (aka: § 42-9-45 (b))
- OCGA § 42-9-46 [legislation]: Statute requiring written notice to sentencing judge and district attorney before parole consideration of an inmate who has not served the statutory minimum. (aka: § 42-9-46)
- OCGA § 42-9-47 [legislation]: Georgia statute requiring notification of parole decisions within 72 hours to specified officials and victims. (aka: O.C.G.A. § 42-9-47)
- OCGA § 5-6-35 [legislation]: Georgia statute requiring discretionary appeal applications, referenced in Brown v. Crawford.
- OCGA §§ 42-9-20, 42-9-21, 42-9-40 [legislation]: Georgia statutes cited in the Hamm v. Ray dissent as basis for the Board's broad discretionary power and authority.
- Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 42-9-40 [legislation]: Georgia statute requiring the State Board of Pardons and Paroles to adopt and maintain a parole guidelines system. (aka: O.C.G.A. § 42-9-40)
- Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 42-9-42 [legislation]: Georgia statute governing parole and pardon conditions, including reasonable probability of law-abiding behavior, employment requirements, and majority vote. (aka: O.C.G.A. § 42-9-42)
- Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 42-9-46 [legislation]: Georgia statute requiring a statement explaining reasoning for granting early parole when an objection was filed. (aka: O.C.G.A. § 42-9-46)
- Ohio Adult Parole Authority [organization]: Described five positive functions of shock probation in 1971.
- Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard [case]: U.S. Supreme Court decision on clemency proceedings; plurality rejected protected interest in clemency, O'Connor concurrence left open minimal safeguards. (aka: 523 U.S. 272)
- Ohio State Penitentiary [facility]: Ohio supermax facility whose conditions the Supreme Court found impose atypical and significant hardship. (aka: OSP, Supermax)
- Olim v. Wakinekona [case]: U.S. Supreme Court decision cited in Aragon v. Martinez regarding objective parole criteria. (aka: Olim)
- Olivier v. City of Brandon [case]: U.S. Supreme Court decision (2026) following Wilkinson v. Dotson on state prisoners' Section 1983 actions.
- Omari Mason v. Kevin Talley [case]: Fourth Circuit decision (2026-09-28) following Wilkinson v. Austin on liberty interests from state policies or regulations. (aka: Mason v. Talley)
- Parole Decision Guidelines System [program]: Board system for structuring parole decisions; Board regulations and NOTICE state it does not create a liberty interest. (aka: Guidelines, Parole Guidelines)
- Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole [organization]: Pennsylvania agency governed by 61 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6139.
- Pennsylvania General Assembly [organization]: Legislative body that enacted Pennsylvania's parole statute, Section 6139.0 of Title 61.
- Perez v. State [case]: Court of Appeals of Georgia decision (2002-03-27) citing Charron for the proposition that OCGA § 42-9-46 authorizes parole consideration before minimum time served.
- Perry v. Sindermann [case]: Supreme Court decision establishing the mutually explicit understandings doctrine for property interests.
- Phillip Fantone v. Fred Latini [case]: Third Circuit decision (2015-02-18) following Jago v. Van Curen on rescission of parole before execution. (aka: Fantone v. Latini)
- Pittman [person]: Senior District Judge who dissented in Sultenfuss v. Snow. (aka: Senior District Judge Pittman)
- Pizzuto v. Valley [case]: 2026 Ninth Circuit decision following Woodard on clemency procedural safeguards.
- Poindexter v. Houston [case]: Nebraska Supreme Court decision (2008) quoting Neb. Rev. Stat. § 83-1,110 on parole eligibility at one-half the minimum term.
- Porter v. Ray [case]: 2006 Eleventh Circuit decision reaffirming Sultenfuss and holding Georgia's parole system creates no legitimate expectation of parole, defeating due process claims even under an alleged de facto 90% policy. (aka: Nathaniel Porter, Jr. v. Walter S. Ray, Jr.)
- Prison Policy Initiative [organization]: Research and advocacy organization focused on prison conditions; published Cut-rate Care and Chronic Punishment reports (aka: PPI)
- R. Davis, Jr. v. PA DOC [case]: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania case (2026) following Swarthout v. Cooke.
- Rapozo v. State [case]: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals decision (2026-10-23) explaining Williamson; notes judicial intervention in parole is typically avoided.
- Ray v. Barber [case]: 2001 Georgia Supreme Court case regarding entitlement to timely parole consideration.
- Ray v. Carthen [case]: Supreme Court of Georgia 2002 decision holding the tentative parole month is a recommendation and mandamus is unavailable for discretionary parole decisions.
- Riley v. Garrett [case]: 1963 Georgia Supreme Court case holding that conviction under defective indictment is void and imprisonment is illegal (aka: Riley v. Garrett, 219 Ga. 345)
- Roger C. Day v. Terry E. Bernard [case]: 2020 Georgia Court of Appeals decision affirming that parole decisions are discretionary with the Board and that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy requiring a clear legal right or gross abuse of discretion.
- Rooney v. State [case]: 2011 Georgia Court of Appeals decision citing separation-of-powers limits on court-imposed parole conditions.
- Rule 2:2-3 [legislation]: New Jersey court rule governing appeals as of right to the Appellate Division, including review of final agency decisions. (aka: N.J. Ct. R. 2:2-3)
- Rule 475-3-.05 (5) [legislation]: Board of Pardons and Paroles rule reserving the Board's discretion to disagree with parole guidelines recommendations and set a tentative parole month at any time prior to sentence expiration. (aka: Board Rule 475-3-.05 (5))
- Saleem v. Snow [case]: 1995 Georgia Court of Appeals decision holding Georgia law does not create a liberty interest in parole.
- Sandin v. Conner [case]: U.S. Supreme Court decision refined by Wilkinson v. Austin; absent from GPS research library entirely.
- Scarpelli v. Gagnon [case]: Supreme Court case cited in Marshall's Greenholtz dissent as recognizing a comparable liberty interest. (aka: Scarpelli)
- Section 46-23-201 MCA [legislation]: Montana parole eligibility statute amended in 1989 from mandatory 'shall release' to discretionary 'may release'. (aka: Montana Code Annotated § 46-23-201)
- Select Committee on Constitutional Revision [organization]: Drafting body whose transcripts the Charron superior court reviewed for intent on legislative oversight of the Board.
- Senate Resolution No. 395 [legislation]: 1994 Georgia Senate resolution proposing the constitutional amendment to Article IV, Section II, Paragraph II regarding mandatory sentences and life without parole; approved April 20, 1994. (aka: Proposed Amendment to the Constitution No. 114, Proposed Amendment No. 114)
- Sentence Reform Act of 1994 [legislation]: Georgia legislation enacted in 1994, the year GDC's year-end population chart records 33,175 inmates.
- Shields v. BellSouth Advertising & Publishing Co. [case]: Eleventh Circuit decision (2000) following Sultenfuss v. Snow on certification of unsettled state law questions.
- Shook v. State [case]: Georgia Court of Appeals case (2009) following Terry v. Hamrick on banishment as part of a rehabilitative sentence.
- Silva v. People [case]: Colorado Supreme Court 1965 decision (158 Colo. 326, 407 P.2d 38) holding parole is a privilege, not a right.
- Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals [organization]: Federal appellate court that held in Sweeton v. Brown and Crump v. Lafler that Michigan's system creates no liberty interest in parole. (aka: 6th Cir.)
- Slocum v. Georgia State Board of Pardons & Paroles [case]: Earlier Eleventh Circuit decision finding no liberty interest in Georgia parole system prior to statutory changes; source of the mandatory-release vs. discretionary-criteria distinction. (aka: Slocum)
- Smith v. Snow [case]: Eleventh Circuit decision (1983) holding the Board's commutation power is completely discretionary and rejecting a due process claim.
- State Board of Pardons and Paroles [organization]: Georgia state entity that serves as a reporting entity for sexual abuse allegations in prisons
- State ex rel. Parson v. Walker [case]: 2024 Supreme Court of Missouri decision following Dumschat on expectation of clemency relief. (aka: State ex rel. Governor Michael L. Parson, Relator v. The Honorable Cotton Walker)
- State of Georgia v. Federal Defender Program, Inc. [case]: 2026 Georgia Supreme Court decision clarifying the PLRA appeal-by-application rule for non-prisoners. (aka: No. S26A0364)
- State v. Cook [case]: 2004 Supreme Court of New Jersey decision recognizing that due process is a flexible concept depending on facts and circumstances.
- State v. Houidobre [case]: New Mexico Supreme Court decision (2024) discussing Board of Pardons v. Allen regarding parole release when designated findings are made.
- State v. Kumukau [case]: Hawaii case quoted in Williamson for the proposition that parole is a matter of legislative grace.
- State v. Riggs [case]: 2017 Georgia Supreme Court case holding that courts lack authority to limit parole eligibility.
- Staton v. Wainwright [case]: 665 F.2d 686 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982); found no protectable liberty interest in Florida parole statutes despite mandatory language because it dictated criteria, not results.
- Steed #170747 v. Harry [case]: Federal habeas case in the Western District of Michigan applying Sixth Circuit precedent that Michigan creates no liberty interest in parole.
- Stephen Breyer [person]: U.S. Supreme Court Justice who dissented in Sandin v. Conner. (aka: Justice Breyer)
- Stephens v. State [case]: 1993 Georgia Court of Appeals case holding sentencing court's attempt to impose parole conditions unconstitutionally infringed on Board's authority.
- Steven Sera v. Randy Zimmerman [case]: Eighth Circuit decision (2026-08-27) following Greenholtz in addressing the Arkansas parole statute. (aka: Sera v. Zimmerman)
- Sultenfuss v. Snow [case]: 35 F.3d 1494 (11th Cir. 1994) (en banc). Held Georgia parole system creates no liberty interest protected by due process.
- Sundiata Acoli [person]: Parole-eligible inmate whose parole denial was overturned by the New Jersey Supreme Court in 2022.
- Sundiata Acoli v. New Jersey State Parole Board [case]: 2022 New Jersey Supreme Court decision holding that under the 1979 Parole Act the inmate was presumptively entitled to release and the Parole Board bore the burden of proving a substantial likelihood of reoffending; parole granted. (aka: Acoli v. New Jersey State Parole Board, A-73-20, 083980)
- Supreme Court of California [organization]: State high court that decided In re Rosenkrantz and In re Lawrence. (aka: California Supreme Court)
- Supreme Court of Georgia [organization]: Georgia's highest court, which imposes public discipline on attorneys and adopted the 2022 amendment to Rule 3.8.
- Supreme Court of Missouri [organization]: Highest court in Missouri; decided State ex rel. Parson v. Walker (2024). (aka: Missouri Supreme Court)
- Supreme Court of New Jersey [organization]: State supreme court that decided Byrne (1983) and Trantino (2001) on parole liberty interests and due process. (aka: New Jersey Supreme Court)
- Supreme Court of the United States [organization]: Highest federal court, which decided Hutto v. Finney and Miller v. French. (aka: Supreme Court)
- Swarthout v. Cooke [case]: U.S. Supreme Court case referenced for its quotation of an earlier edition of California Penal Code § 3041.
- Sweeton v. Brown [case]: 27 F.3d 1162 (6th Cir. 1994) (en banc); held Michigan system does not create a liberty interest in parole.
- Taylor v. Trump [case]: District Court for the District of Columbia case (2026) explaining Sandin v. Conner.
- Terry v. Hamrick [case]: 2008 Supreme Court of Georgia decision holding that trial-court control of parole conditions violates separation of powers; habeas relief granted on that issue.
- Thurgood Marshall [person]: U.S. Supreme Court Justice who joined the Dumschat dissent. (aka: Justice Marshall)
- Torres v. Brookman [case]: Seventh Circuit decision (2025) explaining that Sandin v. Conner qualifies the mandatory language framework. (aka: Norberto Torres v. Kent Brookman)
- Trantino v. New Jersey State Parole Board [case]: New Jersey Supreme Court decision (2001-01-18) applying the 1979 Act's preponderance standard and following Byrne. (aka: Trantino, Trantino II)
- Trantino v. State Parole Bd. (Trantino VI) [case]: 2001 New Jersey Supreme Court decision cited in Acoli for the proposition that Parole Board discretion is not unlimited or absolute. (aka: Trantino VI)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [organization]: Federal appellate court that decided United States v. Davis and Newsome. (aka: 11th Circuit)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [organization]: Federal appellate court that decided United States v. Van Poyck. (aka: 9th Circuit)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit [organization]: Federal appellate court that decided Mahn v. Gunter. (aka: Tenth Circuit)
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan [organization]: Federal district court that decided Steed #170747 v. Harry, applying Sixth Circuit precedent on liberty interest in parole. (aka: Western District of Michigan)
- U.S. Supreme Court [organization]: Highest federal court; decided Brown v. Plata 5-4 in May 2011 (aka: Supreme Court)
- United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia [organization]: Federal district court that decided Greene v. Georgia Pardons and Parole Bd. (1992) and Wilson v. Hickman (2000). (aka: N.D. Georgia, N.D. Ga.)
- US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit [organization]: Federal appellate court whose requirement of a formal hearing for every inmate was rejected in Greenholtz. (aka: Eighth Circuit)
- Vargas v. Morris [case]: 1996 Georgia Supreme Court case regarding Board's discretionary parole power.
- Victory v. Pataki [case]: Second Circuit decision (2016-02-01) distinguishing Jago v. Van Curen based on detailed parole regulations.
- Vidal v. Venettozzi [case]: Second Circuit decision (2026-04-01) following Wilkinson v. Austin on liberty interest in avoiding restrictive confinement.
- Vitek v. Jones [case]: U.S. Supreme Court case cited in Thompson as finding a protected interest in freedom from involuntary transfer to a mental hospital.
- Wilkinson v. Austin [case]: 545 U.S. 209 (2005); Supreme Court held supermax conditions create Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest requiring due process
- Wilkinson v. Dotson [case]: U.S. Supreme Court case (2005) concerning prisoner challenges to parole procedures under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (aka: Dotson)
- Williamson v. Hawai'i Paroling Authority [case]: Hawaii Supreme Court case (2001) holding that Hawaii statutes do not bar the Hawaii Paroling Authority from setting a minimum term equal to the maximum sentence, and that parole is a matter of legislative grace.
- Wilson v. Hickman [case]: 2000 N.D. Georgia decision holding mandamus, not habeas, is the proper vehicle for parole claims.
- Wolcott v. State [case]: 2004 Georgia Supreme Court decision referencing the Board of Pardons and Paroles' role in supervising felony probationers.
- Wolff v. McDonnell [case]: U.S. Supreme Court case establishing due process principles for prison disciplinary proceedings and good time credits. (aka: Wolff)
- Worden v. Montana Bd. of Pardons and Parole [case]: 1998 Montana Supreme Court decision discussing 1989 statutory amendment from 'shall release' to 'may release'.

SOURCES (193)
----------------------------------------
- <h2>Rule 7.118 Appeals from the Michigan Parole Board</h2>, Michigan Court Rules [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20220929015130id_/https://michigancourtrules.org/mcr/chapter-7-appellate-rules/rule-7-118-appeals-from-the-michigan-parole-board/
- 25 LC 48 1390, Georgia General Assembly (2025-01-01) [legislation, primary]
  URL: https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20252026/230183
- 46-23-201. Prisoners eligible for nonmedical parole, MCA, Montana Code Annotated [legislation, primary]
  URL: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0460/chapter_0230/part_0020/section_0010/0460-0230-0020-0010.html
- 83-1,114. (nebraskalegislature.gov), Nebraska Legislature (2024-01-01) [legislation, primary]
  URL: https://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=83-1%2C114&print=true
- 95-4 | Office of the Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General of Georgia (1995-01-01) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://law.georgia.gov/opinions/95-4
- 96-20 | Office of the Attorney General, Georgia Office of the Attorney General (1996-01-01) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://law.georgia.gov/opinions/96-20-0
- 97-10 | Office of the Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://law.georgia.gov/opinions/97-10
- A. R. JAGO, Former Superintendent, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, et al. v. George D. VAN CUREN. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute, Cornell Legal Information Institute (1981-01-01) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/454/14
- About | State Board of Pardons and Paroles, Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles [official_report, primary]
  URL: https://pap.georgia.gov/about
- Act No. 339, 2018 PA 0339 [1], Michigan Legislature (2018-01-01) [legislation, primary]
  URL: https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2017-2018/publicact/pdf/2018-PA-0339.pdf
- Act No. 339, 2018 PA 0339 [2], Michigan Legislature (2018-01-01) [legislation, primary]
  URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20251223190016id_/https://capitol.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2017-2018/publicact/pdf/2018-PA-0339.pdf
- Anthony McClendon El v. Heidi Washington, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 2025-07-21 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2025-07-21) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10638778/anthony-mcclendon-el-v-heidi-washington/
- Aragon v. Martinez, New Mexico Supreme Court, 2025-07-14 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2025-07-14) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10699663/aragon-v-martinez/
- Armstrong v. Super. Ct., California Court of Appeal, 2026-03-27 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2026-03-27) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10844989/armstrong-v-super-ct/
- Article IV, Georgia Constitution - Ballotpedia, Ballotpedia [legal_document, tertiary]
  URL: https://ballotpedia.org/Article_IV,_Georgia_Constitution
- Ballentine v. Broxton, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 2025-09-16 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2025-09-16) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10672600/ballentine-v-broxton/
- Barna v. Travis, U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, 2001-02-02 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2001-02-02) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7086981/barna-v-travis/
- BOARD OF PARDONS and Henry Burgess, Petitioners v. George ALLEN and Dale Jacobsen etc. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School (1987-01-01) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/482/369
- bopp.mt.gov: History, Montana Board of Pardons and Parole [official_report, primary]
  URL: https://bopp.mt.gov/History
- Bowers v. Hardwick, Supreme Court of the United States, 1986-09-11 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (1986-09-11) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/111738/bowers-v-hardwick/
- Bradshaw v. State, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2008-11-25 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2008-11-25) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1156996/bradshaw-v-state/
- Brown v. Barrow, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 2008-01-11 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2008-01-11) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/77918/brown-v-barrow/
- Brown v. Crawford, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2011-09-12 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2011-09-12) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2502955/brown-v-crawford/
- Bryan Fredrick Jennings v. State of Florida & Bryan Fredrick Jennings v. State of Florida & Bryan Fredrick Jennings v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, Supreme Court of Florida, 2025-11-06 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2025-11-06) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10750927/bryan-fredrick-jennings-v-state-of-florida-bryan-fredrick-jennings-v/
- C. W. v. Steve Smith, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 2026-06-17 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2026-06-17) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10876627/c-w-v-steve-smith/
- C.R.S. 17-22.5-404.5 – Presumption of parole, Colorado Public Law [legislation, primary]
  URL: https://colorado.public.law/statutes/crs_17-22.5-404.5
- California Code, PEN 3041, California Legislative Information [legislation, primary]
  URL: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=3041
- California Code, PEN 3041., California Legislative Information [legislation, primary]
  URL: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=3041.
- Campbell v. State, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1997-05-12 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (1997-05-12) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1205017/campbell-v-state/
- Carl D. McQuillion v. William Duncan, Warden Attorney General of the State of California, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, 2002-09-25 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2002-09-25) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/779408/carl-d-mcquillion-v-william-duncan-warden-attorney-general-of-the-state/
- Carl J. Monroe v. Morris Thigpen, Leland Lambert, U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, 1991-06-10 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (1991-06-10) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/561221/carl-j-monroe-v-morris-thigpen-leland-lambert/
- Carlton Vur Adams v. Parole Board, 2022-01-27 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2022-01-27) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6248656/carlton-vur-adams-v-parole-board/
- Carvin Thomas v. Richard Montgomery, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 2025-06-09 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2025-06-09) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10601200/carvin-thomas-v-richard-montgomery/
- Chapter 706 (data.capitol.hawaii.gov), Hawaii State Legislature (2017-01-01) [legislation, primary]
  URL: https://data.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2017/HRS-Chapter-PDF's/HRS_0706.pdf
- Chapter 791 (legislature.mi.gov), Michigan Legislature [legislation, primary]
  URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20260110100356id_/http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-chap791.pdf
- Charron v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1984-09-06 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (1984-09-06) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1349877/charron-v-state-board-of-pardons-paroles/
- Cinda SANDIN, Unit Team Manager, Halawa Correctional Facility, Petitioner, v. Demont R.D. CONNER et al. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute (Cornell Law School) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/515/472
- CONNECTICUT BOARD OF PARDONS et al., Petitioners, v. David DUMSCHAT et al. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School (1981-01-01) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/452/458
- Connecticut Board of Pardons v. Dumschat, Supreme Court of the United States, 1981-06-17 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (1981-06-17) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/110525/connecticut-board-of-pardons-v-dumschat/
- Constitution of the state of Georgia ratified, November 2, 1982, proclaimed, December 21, 1982 - Digital Library of Georgia, Digital Library of Georgia (1982-01-01) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://dlg.usg.edu/record/dlg_ggpd_y-ga-bc600-b-ps1-bc6-b1983
- Cook v. State, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2022-03-15 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2022-03-15) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10679925/cook-v-state/
- Cotton v. Mississippi Parole Bd., 2003-11-20 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2003-11-20) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1831287/cotton-v-mississippi-parole-bd/
- courts.michigan.gov: Appeals From and Objections to Parole Board Decisions, Michigan Courts (appellate benchbook) [official_report, primary]
  URL: https://www.courts.michigan.gov/49d8e4/siteassets/publications/benchbooks/appeals-opinions/appealsopinionsresponsivehtml5.zip/Appeals_Opinions/Ch_2_Circuit_Court_Appeals/Appeals_From_and_Objections_to_Parole_Board_Decisions.htm
- Dagro Assoc., LLC v. City of Yonkers, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, 2026-02-25 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2026-02-25) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10800559/dagro-assoc-llc-v-city-of-yonkers/
- Daker v. Ray, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2002-04-29 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2002-04-29) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1306677/daker-v-ray/
- Dale Scott Davies v. Cook County Superior Court, Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2018-04-20 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2018-04-20) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4488647/dale-scott-davies-v-cook-county-superior-court/
- Day v. Bernard, No. A20A1019 (Ga. Ct. App. 2020), Georgia Court of Appeals (2020-01-01) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4783843/roger-c-day-v-terry-e-bernard/
- Denson v. State, Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2004-05-20 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2004-05-20) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1415916/denson-v-state/
- Dickerson v. Augusta-Richmond County Commission, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1999-11-01 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (1999-11-01) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1382792/dickerson-v-augusta-richmond-county-commission/
- Donald Arthur Mahn v. Frank Gunter Gale A. Norton, Attorney General of the State of Colorado, U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit, 1992-10-29 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (1992-10-29) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/593390/donald-arthur-mahn-v-frank-gunter-gale-a-norton-attorney-general-of-the/
- Drogheo v. FIENO, District Court, W.D. New York, 2011-05-19 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2011-05-19) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2177706/drogheo-v-fieno/
- Dudley v. Boise State University, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2025-08-27 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2025-08-27) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10661792/dudley-v-boise-state-university/
- Eidson v. State, Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2003-08-06 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2003-08-06) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1330190/eidson-v-state/
- Filgueiras v. Newark Pub. Schools, New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division, 2012-06-18 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2012-06-18) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2300754/filgueiras-v-newark-pub-schools/
- Frequently Asked Questions | State Board of Pardons and Paroles, Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles [official_report, primary]
  URL: https://pap.georgia.gov/parole-consideration/frequently-asked-questions
- GA R&R - GAC - Chapter 475-3 RULES, Georgia Secretary of State [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://rules.sos.ga.gov/gac/475-3
- Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. R. 475-3-.01 - Rule Making Authority | State Regulations | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/georgia/Ga-Comp-R-Regs-R-475-3-.01
- Ga. L. 1943, p. 185 (Acts and resolutions of the General Assembly of the state of Georgia 1943 [volume 1]), Digital Library of Georgia (1943-01-01) [legislation, primary]
  URL: https://dlg.usg.edu/record/dlg_zlgl_183439209#pdf-page=61
- Ga. L. 1974, p. 474 (Acts and resolutions of the General Assembly of the state of Georgia 1974 [volume 1]), Digital Library of Georgia (1974-01-01) [legislation, primary]
  URL: https://dlg.usg.edu/record/dlg_zlgl_343302222#pdf-page=146
- Ga. L. 1975, p. 795 (Acts and resolutions of the General Assembly of the state of Georgia 1975 [volume 1]), Digital Library of Georgia (1975-01-01) [legislation, primary]
  URL: https://dlg.usg.edu/record/dlg_zlgl_352707920#pdf-page=240
- Ga. L. 1993, p. 1656 (Acts and resolutions of the General Assembly of the state of Georgia 1993 [volume 1]), Digital Library of Georgia (1993-01-01) [legislation, primary]
  URL: https://dlg.usg.edu/record/dlg_zlgl_542224770#pdf-page=485
- Ga. L. 1994, p. 2015 (Acts and resolutions of the General Assembly of the state of Georgia 1994 [volume 1]), Digital Library of Georgia (1994-01-01) [legislation, primary]
  URL: https://dlg.usg.edu/record/dlg_zlgl_552861174#pdf-page=677
- Ga. L. 1995, p. 625 (Acts and resolutions of the General Assembly of the state of Georgia 1995 [volume 1]), Digital Library of Georgia (1995-01-01) [legislation, primary]
  URL: https://dlg.usg.edu/record/dlg_zlgl_563510980#pdf-page=255
- Galbraith v. Hooper, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 2025-08-20 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2025-08-20) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10657600/galbraith-v-hooper/
- Garner v. Jones, Supreme Court of the United States, 2000-04-18 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2000-04-18) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/118351/garner-v-jones/
- Garnett v. Hamrick, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2006-05-17 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2006-05-17) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1390242/garnett-v-hamrick/
- Georgia Amendment 2, Mandatory Sentences and Restrictions on Pardons and Paroles Amendment (1994) - Ballotpedia, Ballotpedia (1994-01-01) [legal_document, secondary]
  URL: https://ballotpedia.org/Georgia_Amendment_2,_Mandatory_Sentences_and_Restrictions_on_Pardons_and_Paroles_Amendment_(1994)
- Georgia Amendment 3, Board of Pardons and Paroles Measure (August 1943) - Ballotpedia, Ballotpedia (1943-08-01) [data_portal, secondary]
  URL: https://ballotpedia.org/Georgia_Amendment_3,_Board_of_Pardons_and_Paroles_Measure_(August_1943)
- Georgia State Board of Pardons & Paroles v. Turner, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1982-01-07 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (1982-01-07) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5745792/georgia-state-board-of-pardons-paroles-v-turner/
- Georgia State Constitution (1976) - Wikisource, the free online library, Wikisource (1976-01-01) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Georgia_State_Constitution_(1976)
- Grading the parole release systems of all 50 states | Prison Policy Initiative, Prison Policy Initiative [official_report, secondary]
  URL: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/grading_parole.html
- Green v. State, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1979-11-21 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (1979-11-21) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1398818/green-v-state/
- Greene v. Georgia Pardons and Parole Bd., District Court, N.D. Georgia, 1992-10-26 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (1992-10-26) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1967738/greene-v-georgia-pardons-and-parole-bd/
- Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, Supreme Court of the United States, 1979-05-29 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (1979-05-29) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/110085/greenholtz-v-inmates-of-the-nebraska-penal-correctional-complex/
- Greenman v. MASSACHUSETTS PAROLE BOARD, 1989-07-11 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (1989-07-11) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2180872/greenman-v-massachusetts-parole-board/
- Gregory v. Sexual Offender Registration Review Board, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2016-03-21 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2016-03-21) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3187173/gregory-v-sexual-offender-registration-review-board/
- Gutierrez v. Saenz, Supreme Court of the United States, 2025-06-26 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2025-06-26) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10617645/gutierrez-v-saenz/
- Hamm v. Ray, 2000-05-30 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2000-05-30) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1419720/hamm-v-ray/
- Hammond v. Hall, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 2009-11-04 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2009-11-04) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/78509/hammond-v-hall/
- Heard v. Georgia State Board of Pardons & Paroles, U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, 2007-03-13 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2007-03-13) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/52030/heard-v-georgia-state-board-of-pardons-paroles/
- In re Lawrence, 2008-08-21 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2008-08-21) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5608073/in-re-lawrence/
- In re Mcghee, California Court of Appeal, 5th District, 2019-04-29 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2019-04-29) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6240464/in-re-mcghee/
- In re Palmer, California Court of Appeal, 5th District, 2018-09-13 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2018-09-13) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6239910/in-re-palmer/
- In Re Parole of Richard Allen McBrayer, 2023-07-24 (court record via CourtListener), Michigan Supreme Court / CourtListener (2023-07-24) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9415433/in-re-parole-of-richard-allen-mcbrayer/
- In re Poole, California Court of Appeal, 5th District, 2018-06-22 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2018-06-22) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6239733/in-re-poole/
- In re Question Concerning State Judicial Review of Parole Denial Certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 1980-05-12 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (1980-05-12) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7885543/in-re-question-concerning-state-judicial-review-of-parole-denial-certified/
- In Re Rosenkrantz, 2002-12-16 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2002-12-16) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2621225/in-re-rosenkrantz/
- In re Van Houten, California Court of Appeal, 2023-05-30 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2023-05-30) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9402808/in-re-van-houten/
- Inmate TPM Lookup | State Board of Pardons and Paroles, State Board of Pardons and Paroles [official_report, primary]
  URL: https://pap.georgia.gov/parole-consideration/inmate-tpm-lookup
- Jago v. Van Curen, Supreme Court of the United States, 1981-11-09 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (1981-11-09) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/110576/jago-v-van-curen/
- James Huston Jones, and All Others Similarly Situated v. Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 1995-07-28 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (1995-07-28) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/699304/james-huston-jones-and-all-others-similarly-situated-v-georgia-state/
- John B. GREENHOLTZ, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. INMATES OF the NEBRASKA PENAL AND CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX et al. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School (1979-01-01) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/442/1
- Johnson v. Griffin, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1999-10-18 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (1999-10-18) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1281184/johnson-v-griffin/
- Jones v. Board of Parole, Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2026-06-10 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2026-06-10) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10879208/jones-v-board-of-parole/
- Justice v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1975-06-24 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (1975-06-24) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1378604/justice-v-state-board-of-pardons-paroles/
- Kentucky Department of Corrections v. Thompson, Supreme Court of the United States, 1989-05-15 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (1989-05-15) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/112260/kentucky-department-of-corrections-v-thompson/
- KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Petitioners v. James M. THOMPSON et al. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School (1989-01-01) [legal_document, secondary]
  URL: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/490/454
- Larry Jones v. Walter S. Ray, Chairman, Bobby K. Whitworth, U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, 2001-11-01 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2001-11-01) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/776484/larry-jones-v-walter-s-ray-chairman-bobby-k-whitworth/
- law.cornell.edu: 10 333, Cornell Legal Information Institute (2011-01-01) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/10-333
- law.cornell.edu: Ga Comp R Regs R 475 3 .05, Cornell Legal Information Institute [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/georgia/Ga-Comp-R-Regs-R-475-3-.05
- Lewis v. Griffin, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1989-02-23 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (1989-02-23) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1255188/lewis-v-griffin/
- Luna Gutierrez v. Noem, District Court, District of Columbia, 2025-12-05 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2025-12-05) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10748379/luna-gutierrez-v-noem/
- Manley v. State, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2010-04-09 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2010-04-09) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2399164/manley-v-state/
- Marks v. State, Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 2026-04-23 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2026-04-23) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10847349/marks-v-state/
- Mason v. Hawaii Paroling Authority, Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 2021-02-05 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2021-02-05) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4854139/mason-v-hawaii-paroling-authority/
- Matter of Brown v. New York State DOCCS, Exec. Clemency Bur., Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, 2025-06-26 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2025-06-26) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10624974/matter-of-brown-v-new-york-state-doccs-exec-clemency-bur/
- Matter of Cargill v. Howard, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, 2026-01-15 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2026-01-15) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10774907/matter-of-cargill-v-howard/
- Matter of Copeland v. Towns, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, 2025-12-31 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2025-12-31) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10771769/matter-of-copeland-v-towns/
- McDermott v. McDonald, 2001-05-17 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2001-05-17) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/885817/mcdermott-v-mcdonald/
- MCL - Section 791.233e - Michigan Legislature, MCL [1], Michigan Legislature [legislation, primary]
  URL: https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=MCL-791-233E
- MCL - Section 791.233e - Michigan Legislature, MCL [2], Michigan Legislature [legislation, primary]
  URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20250618151744id_/https://capitol.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=MCL-791-233E
- MCL - Section 791.234 - Michigan Legislature, Michigan Legislature [legislation, primary]
  URL: https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-791-234
- Metheny v. Hammonds, M.D. Ga., 1999-03-24 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (1999-03-24) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2286364/metheny-v-hammonds/
- Michael Boothe v. Edward Hammock, Chairman, New York State Board of Parole, U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, 1979-09-14 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (1979-09-14) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/369665/michael-boothe-v-edward-hammock-chairman-new-york-state-board-of-parole/
- Michael Hester v. Chester Cnty., Tenn., Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 2025-12-19 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener by Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (2025-12-19) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10761977/michael-hester-v-chester-cnty-tenn/
- Miller v. OREGON BD. OF PAROLE SUPERVISION, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2011-04-25 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2011-04-25) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/215369/miller-v-oregon-bd-of-parole-supervision/
- Moore v. Ray, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1998-05-18 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (1998-05-18) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1313034/moore-v-ray/
- Nathaniel Porter, Jr. v. Walter S. Ray, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, 2006-06-21 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2006-06-21) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/77353/nathaniel-porter-jr-v-walter-s-ray-jr/
- Nebraska Legislature (nebraskalegislature.gov), Nebraska Legislature [legislation, primary]
  URL: https://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=83-1%2C114
- Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library, Nebraska Judicial Branch by Nebraska Supreme Court [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewOpinion?docId=N00012506PUB
- New Jersey State Parole Board v. Byrne, 1983-05-11 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener by Supreme Court of New Jersey (1983-05-11) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2353660/new-jersey-state-parole-board-v-byrne/
- New Jersey Statutes Title 30. Institutions and Agencies 30 § 4-123.53 | FindLaw, FindLaw [legislation, primary]
  URL: https://codes.findlaw.com/nj/title-30-institutions-and-agencies/nj-st-sect-30-4-123-53/
- New York Consolidated Laws, Executive Law - EXC § 259-c | FindLaw, FindLaw [legislation, primary]
  URL: https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/executive-law/exc-sect-259-c/
- New York Consolidated Laws, Executive Law - EXC § 259-i | FindLaw, FindLaw [legislation, primary]
  URL: https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/executive-law/exc-sect-259-i/
- njcourts.gov: appellatestandards, New Jersey Courts [official_report, primary]
  URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20260906123306id_/https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/courts/appellatestandards.pdf
- Norberto Torres v. Kent Brookman, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 2025-10-17 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2025-10-17) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10705881/norberto-torres-v-kent-brookman/
- Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 42-9-40 (GPS's copy of the Code), Georgia Prisoners' Speak (2026-10-28) [legislation, primary]
  URL: https://gps.press/ocga/42-9-40/
- Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 42-9-42 (GPS's copy of the Code), Georgia Prisoners' Speak (2026-10-28) [legislation, primary]
  URL: https://gps.press/ocga/42-9-42/
- Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 42-9-43 (GPS's copy of the Code), Georgia Prisoners' Speak (2026-10-28) [legislation, primary]
  URL: https://gps.press/ocga/42-9-43/
- Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 42-9-45 (GPS's copy of the Code), Georgia Prisoners' Speak [legislation, primary]
  URL: https://gps.press/ocga/42-9-45/
- Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 42-9-46 (GPS's copy of the Code), Georgia Prisoners' Speak (2026-10-28) [legislation, primary]
  URL: https://gps.press/ocga/42-9-46/
- Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 42-9-47 (GPS's copy of the Code), Georgia Prisoners' Speak [legislation, primary]
  URL: https://gps.press/ocga/42-9-47/
- Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 42-9-53 (GPS's copy of the Code), Georgia Prisoners' Speak [legislation, primary]
  URL: https://gps.press/ocga/42-9-53/
- Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 50-13-2 (GPS's copy of the Code), Georgia Prisoners' Speak [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://gps.press/ocga/50-13-2/
- Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 9-6-21 (GPS's copy of the Code), Georgia Prisoners' Speak [legislation, primary]
  URL: https://gps.press/ocga/9-6-21/
- OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY, et al., Petitioners, v. Eugene WOODARD. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute, Cornell Legal Information Institute (1998-01-01) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/523/272
- Olim v. Wakinekona, Supreme Court of the United States, 1983-04-26 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (1983-04-26) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/110921/olim-v-wakinekona/
- Olivier v. City of Brandon, Supreme Court of the United States, 2026-03-20 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2026-03-20) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10811625/olivier-v-city-of-brandon/
- Omari Mason v. Kevin Talley, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2026-09-28 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2026-09-28) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10986385/omari-mason-v-kevin-talley/
- Perez v. State, Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2002-03-27 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2002-03-27) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1214150/perez-v-state/
- Phillip Fantone v. Fred Latini, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 2015-02-18 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2015-02-18) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2779958/phillip-fantone-v-fred-latini/
- Phillip Wayne Harris v. David Evans, Commissioner, Lanson Newsome, Deputy Commissioner, A.G. Thomas, Warden, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 1991-01-10 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (1991-01-10) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/552465/phillip-wayne-harris-v-david-evans-commissioner-lanson-newsome-deputy/
- Pizzuto v. Valley, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2026-06-05 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2026-06-05) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10870732/pizzuto-v-valley/
- Poindexter v. Houston, 2008-06-13 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2008-06-13) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1784114/poindexter-v-houston/
- R. Davis, Jr. v. PA DOC, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2026-08-04 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2026-08-04) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10939376/r-davis-jr-v-pa-doc/
- Rapozo v. State, Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 2026-10-23 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2026-10-23) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/11044658/rapozo-v-state/
- Ray v. Barber, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2001-06-04 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2001-06-04) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1328758/ray-v-barber/
- Ray v. Carthen, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2002-09-16 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2002-09-16) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5748170/ray-v-carthen/
- Rex Chappell v. R. Mandeville, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2013-01-31 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2013-01-31) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/818032/rex-chappell-v-r-mandeville/
- Riley v. Garrett, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1963-10-15 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (1963-10-15) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1339149/riley-v-garrett/
- Robert Earl Howard v. Melinda N. Coonrod – CourtListener.com, CourtListener (2025-01-01) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10378963/robert-earl-howard-v-melinda-n-coonrod/
- Rooney v. State, Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2011-08-09 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2011-08-09) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2502086/rooney-v-state/
- Rule 2:2-3: Appeals to the Appellate… | N.J. Ct. R. Pt. 2 | Court Rules Network, Court Rules Network [legal_document, secondary]
  URL: https://www.courtrules.net/new_jersey/new-jersey-appellate/rule-2-2-3
- Sabino Cruz v. State, Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2012-05-10 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2012-05-10) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10716780/sabino-cruz-v-state/
- SADO - Article - Navigating Through the Appeal of A Parole Decision, State Appellate Defender Office (Michigan) [official_report, secondary]
  URL: https://www.sado.org/articles/Article/84
- Saleem v. Snow, Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1995-07-14 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (1995-07-14) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1342942/saleem-v-snow/
- Sandin v. Conner, Supreme Court of the United States, 1995-06-19 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (1995-06-19) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/117957/sandin-v-conner/
- Section 6139.0 - Title 61 - PRISONS AND PAROLE, Pennsylvania General Assembly [legislation, primary]
  URL: https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/61/00.061.039.000..HTM
- Shields v. BellSouth Advertising & Publishing Co., Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 2000-09-29 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2000-09-29) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/74833/shields-v-bellsouth-advertising-publishing-co/
- Shook v. State, Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2009-09-10 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2009-09-10) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1327162/shook-v-state/
- Smith v. Snow, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 1983-12-14 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (1983-12-14) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/427760/smith-v-snow/
- sos.ga.gov: Georgia Constitution, Georgia Secretary of State [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20260914232132id_/https://sos.ga.gov/sites/default/files/forms/Georgia%20Constitution.pdf
- Stacey Humphreys v. Commissioner, Georgia Department of Corrections, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 2025-12-15 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2025-12-15) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10758304/stacey-humphreys-v-commissioner-georgia-department-of-corrections/
- State ex rel. Governor Michael L. Parson, Relator v. The Honorable Cotton Walker, Supreme Court of Missouri, 2024-06-04 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2024-06-04) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10627445/state-ex-rel-governor-michael-l-parson-relator-v-the-honorable-cotton/
- STATE OF GEORGIA v. FEDERAL DEFENDER PROGRAM, INC., Supreme Court of Georgia, 2026-06-02 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2026-06-02) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10868284/state-of-georgia-v-federal-defender-program-inc/
- State v. Cook, Supreme Court of New Jersey, 2004-05-10 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2004-05-10) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1482099/state-v-cook/
- State v. Houidobre, New Mexico Supreme Court, 2024-11-18 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2024-11-18) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10371360/state-v-houidobre/
- State v. Riggs, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2017-05-01 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2017-05-01) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5749668/state-v-riggs/
- Steed #170747 v. Harry Doc. 5, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/michigan/miwdce/1:2017cv00540/87936/5/0.pdf
- Stephen Sultenfuss, Charles McMulling v. Wayne Snow, Jr., James T. Morris, Mobley Howell, Michael H. Wing, Bettye O. Hutchings, Michael J. Bowers, 1994-10-05 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (1994-10-05) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/678573/stephen-sultenfuss-charles-mcmulling-v-wayne-snow-jr-james-t-morris-mobley-howell-michael-h-wing-bettye-o-hutchings-michael-j-bowers/
- Stephen Sultenfuss, Charles McMulling v. Wayne Snow, Jr., James T. Morris, Mobley Howell, Michael H. Wing, Bettye O. Hutchings, Michael J. Bowers, U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, 1993-11-03 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (1993-11-03) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/655576/stephen-sultenfuss-charles-mcmulling-v-wayne-snow-jr-james-t-morris/
- Stephen Sultenfuss, Charles McMulling v. Wayne Snow, Jr., James T. Morris, Mobley Howell, Michael... – CourtListener.com, CourtListener (1994-01-01) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/678573/stephen-sultenfuss-charles-mcmulling-v-wayne-snow-jr-james-t-morris/
- Stephens v. State, Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1993-03-08 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (1993-03-08) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1288252/stephens-v-state/
- Steven Sera v. Randy Zimmerman, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 2026-08-27 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener by Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (2026-08-27) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10960359/steven-sera-v-randy-zimmerman/
- Sundiata Acoli v. New Jersey State Parole Board (083980) (Statewide) - Published | NJ Courts, New Jersey Courts (2022-01-01) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.njcourts.gov/court-opinion/sundiata-acoli-v-new-jersey-state-parole-board-083980-statewide-published
- Sundiata Acoli v. New Jersey State Parole Board (083980) (Statewide), 2022-05-10 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2022-05-10) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6466939/sundiata-acoli-v-new-jersey-state-parole-board-083980-statewide/
- Supreme Case A-73-20 - Sundiata Acoli v. New Jersey State Parole Board | NJ Courts, New Jersey Courts (2022-01-01) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.njcourts.gov/cases/a-73-20
- Swarthout v. Cooke, Supreme Court of the United States, 2011-01-24 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2011-01-24) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7341400/swarthout-v-cooke/
- Taylor v. Trump, District Court, District of Columbia, 2026-02-11 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2026-02-11) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10789719/taylor-v-trump/
- Terry v. Hamrick, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2008-06-30 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2008-06-30) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1217899/terry-v-hamrick/
- The Parole Process in Georgia | State Board of Pardons and Paroles, State Board of Pardons and Paroles [official_report, primary]
  URL: https://pap.georgia.gov/parole-consideration/parole-process-georgia
- Trantino v. New Jersey State Parole Board, 2001-01-18 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener by Supreme Court of New Jersey (2001-01-18) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1918563/trantino-v-new-jersey-state-parole-board/
- Vargas v. Morris, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1996-01-08 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (1996-01-08) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1222702/vargas-v-morris/
- Victory v. Pataki, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2016-02-01 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2016-02-01) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8442570/victory-v-pataki/
- Vidal v. Venettozzi, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2026-04-01 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2026-04-01) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10831218/vidal-v-venettozzi/
- WILKINSON v. AUSTIN | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/04-495
- Wilkinson v. Dotson, Supreme Court of the United States, 2005-03-07 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2005-03-07) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/142877/wilkinson-v-dotson/
- WILKINSON, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION, ET AL. v. DOTSON ET AL. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/544/74
- Williamson v. Hawai'i Paroling Authority, 2001-11-29 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2001-11-29) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2637982/williamson-v-hawaii-paroling-authority/
- Willis Metheny v. Garfield Hammonds, Jr., Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 2000-07-07 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2000-07-07) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/74698/willis-metheny-v-garfield-hammonds-jr/
- Wilson v. Hickman, District Court, N.D. Georgia, 2000-02-16 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2000-02-16) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2500559/wilson-v-hickman/
- Wolcott v. State, Supreme Court of Georgia, 2004-10-25 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (2004-10-25) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1211415/wolcott-v-state/
- Worden v. Montana Bd. of Pardons and Parole, 1998-07-07 (court record via CourtListener), CourtListener (1998-07-07) [legal_document, primary]
  URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/884663/worden-v-montana-bd-of-pardons-and-parole/