in Re Parole of Richard McBrayer, 336084

Richard McBrayer pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct for repeated sexual abuse of his stepdaughter when she was 12–14; he received concurrent 20–40 year sentences.
Victim reported severe long-term physical and psychological injuries and opposed parole; she described hospitalizations and ongoing medical issues.
McBrayer had a high parole-guidelines score (+11) and the Michigan Parole Board voted to grant parole in October 2015 with a projected January 2016 release.
McBrayer’s proposed transfer to Louisiana was denied; he instead was to be placed at a facility in Clinton Township near the victim, frustrating his stated plan to avoid contact with children and the victim.
The circuit court, on appellee’s delayed appeal, reversed the Board’s grant of parole, finding the Board failed to consider all facts (including derailment of McBrayer’s Louisiana plan, his attraction to young adolescents, and perceived infirmities in risk/mental-health evaluations).
The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding substantial and compelling reasons supported denial of parole given the severity of the offense, victim’s ongoing harm, McBrayer’s problematic statements, and the derailment of his relocation plan.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Board abused its discretion by granting parole	Board failed to consider all facts and abused discretion; parole should be reversed	Board acted within discretion, considered rehabilitation and COMPAS improvements	Court held Board abused discretion; affirmed reversal because substantial and compelling reasons supported denying parole
Whether derailment of McBrayer’s Louisiana plan was material	Derailment was highly significant — it undercut his relapse-avoidance and plan to avoid victim	Board argued parole decision proper despite transfer denial; relied on assessments and earlier reports	Court held the derailment materially undercut assurances and supported reversal
Whether improvements in COMPAS and QMHPE justified parole	Appellee argued assessments were dubious or improperly relied upon and didn’t reflect ongoing risks	Board relied on 2015 COMPAS/QMHPE showing improvement and responsibility acceptance	Court found assessments insufficient to outweigh other factors (victim harm, admissions, relocation failure)
Whether reviewing court may substitute its judgment for Board	Appellee argued Board decision was clear abuse of discretion	Board argued courts should defer to parole expertise and not substitute judgment	Court affirmed limited review but found abuse of discretion present and upheld circuit court reversal

In re Elias, 294 Mich App 507 (parole-review abuse-of-discretion standard; Board must consider rehabilitation and mental/social attitude)