Although the Board of Parole’s discretion in the granting of parole is almost unlimited, there must be some evidence to support the board’s denial of parole as well as some connection between the findings and the board’s conclusion that the inmate is currently dangerous. In a petition for writ of habeas corpus to the superior court, appellant argued that there was no evidence to support the finding of the Board of Parole that he was not suitable for parole as he would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to the public if released. The superior court concluded that the board had not applied the standard set forth in In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181, instead, resting its denial on the nature of the offense and a history of instability without articulating a nexus with its finding and the finding of dangerousness, and granted the petition. The warden appealed. The court upheld the board’s decision, finding that although it did not specifically state the rational nexus between a psychological report it considered and the ultimate conclusion of dangerousness, its explanation contained an adequate reasoning.