The petitioners are asking the Sacramento County Superior Court to strike down the new regulations that include recommendations for re-sentencing.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) – A group of California petitioners challenged the legal validity of recently amended parole regulations, saying the new procedures violate statutes and create undue hardship for families of crime victims.
The petitioners are members of the families of the slain victims, victims’ rights organizations and services, such as Crime Victims United of California, Citizens Against Homicide and Victim Advocate Angels, along with the California Peace Officers’ Research Association.
The new regulations establish evaluations and hearings for inmates who are not eligible for parole, allowing for recall and re-sentencing recommendations to the court and commutation to the governor. A positive recommendation is made if the inmate meets the same criteria used for parole, regardless of factors such as the minimum sentence, statutory sentencing requirements or the interests of victims, the petitioners say.
“The Board of Parole Hearings … has undertaken to expand this recommendation authority to a full system of reviews and hearings that parallels and resembles the parole hearing system — the system that the people of California voted to curb in Marsy’s Law, Proposition 9 of 2008, because of the prolonged suffering it imposes on families, say victims of their crimes.” petition for a writ of mandate filed in Sacramento County Superior Court.
The petitioners say the new regulations violate administrative procedure law and are inconsistent with the rights of crime victims under the March law. Marsy’s Law, named after Marsalee Nicholas, a college student who was stalked and murdered in 1983, established expanded legal rights of crime victims that include notice of all legal proceedings and parole decisions and the right to have protection and privacy from the accused, along with legal standing to enforce their rights in court.
In addition, the petitioners say, adults convicted of first-degree murder under special circumstances are either sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, or to death.
“The fact that the prisoner has already received the minimum statutory sentence for the crime is an unavoidably important factor if re-sentencing is recommended,” the petitioners say. “By forcing a positive recommendation based solely on risk assessment, without regard to this fact, the regulations are inconsistent with both the applicable statute and the standards provided by other provisions of the law, and are therefore invalid.
One of the plaintiffs, Amber Marie Kavanaugh, is the mother of a 6-week-old baby named Alya, who was tortured and killed by her father. Kevin Van Streefkerk pleaded guilty to the crimes and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole in 2024.
“Ensuring the completion of this sentence, without the possibility of having to challenge parole at periodic hearings, was an important part of Petitioner Kavanaugh’s ability to begin healing after Alya’s murder,” the petitioners say. “The prospect of bail-like hearings, which could lead to a reduced sentence, causes her significant emotional distress and distress.”
The petitioners are asking the court to enjoin the Board of Parole Hearings from implementing the new regulations and declare them null and void.
A spokesman for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation said the board has not received the petition and declined to comment on pending litigation. However, the CDCR spokesperson said that only individuals who have served 25 consecutive years of imprisonment and do not meet any exclusion criteria can enter the review process under the new regulations.
“What we can say is that these regulations do not bail anyone out of jail,” the CDCR spokesperson said in an email to Courthouse News. “They create a transparent process for the Board of Parole Hearings to provide expert public safety assessments to the courts and the governor, who remain the sole decision-makers for re-sentence or commutation of sentence.”
Preliminary hearings are scheduled to begin on July 1, 2027, with hearings beginning on July 1, 2028.
Attorneys representing the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Subscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing arguments provides the latest on ongoing trials, major litigation and decisions in courts around the US and the world, while monthly Under the lights feeds legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.
