In re Stoneroad, 155 Cal. Rptr. 3d 639

Stoneroad, life prisoner, convicted of second degree murder and attempted murder, denied parole by Board of Parole Hearings (Board).
He argues the denial is arbitrary and not supported by some evidence of current dangerousness.
He contends the gravity of the commitment offense cannot support parole denial once he has served the Board’s maximum base term.
Parole history: eligible since 2002; parole denials in 2006 and 2010.
Records show extensive psychological evaluations and treatment history highlighting alcohol abuse and attempts at rehabilitation.
Board’s decision was remanded for new parole proceeding under Prather.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Board’s denial is supported by some evidence of current dangerousness	Stoneroad lacks current danger indicators	Board found lack of insight and current danger	Yes for Board; but remanded due to other factors not properly considered
Whether gravity of the commitment offense can justify denial after maximum base term	Gravity cannot justify unsuitability once base term is exceeded	Gravity remains a relevant factor for current dangerousness	No; gravity cannot alone sustain denial if base term reached, but remand for proper consideration of all factors
Whether Board failed to consider statutory/regulatory factors bearing on parole suitability	Board ignored several regulatory factors favoring suitability	Board did not adequately consider, but factors exist to support denial	No; Board’s failure to consider some factors invalid; remand for proper analysis
Whether lack of memory of the offense invalidates insight and justifies denial	Inability to recall does not negate insight or current dangerousness	Lack of recall indicates lack of insight	No; lack of memory cannot rationally support current dangerousness and cannot be sole basis for unsuitability
Remedy and scope of remand following Prather	Grant habeas and remand for new hearing	Remand appropriate to ensure due process	Grant petition; remand for new parole hearing under Prather

In re Prather, 50 Cal.4th 238 (Cal. 2010) (remand for new parole hearing to ensure due process)
In re Rosenkrantz, 29 Cal.4th 616 (Cal. 2000) (parole review requires some evidence and due consideration of factors)
Lawrence v. California, 44 Cal.4th 1181 (Cal. 2008) (parole suitability and some evidence standard; focus on current dangerousness)
Shaputis II, 53 Cal.4th 192 (Cal. 2011) (reaffirms deferential 'some evidence' review and inclusion of insight factors)
Rodriguez, 14 Cal.3d 639 (Cal. 1975) (constitutional proportionality of term; base term concept)
Wingo, 14 Cal.3d 169 (Cal. 1975) (prompt fixing of base term; proportionality concerns)
Dannenberg, 34 Cal.4th 1061 (Cal. 2004) (parole/suitability framework; influence on base term and review)