The Governor’s reversal of a grant of parole by the parole board was timely. Once the parole board grants parole and the decision becomes final, the Governor then has 30 days to review it. Here there was a one-day dispute as to timeliness. Petitioner claimed the Governor’s decision was late because the letter the parole board presented to him notifying him of the parole grant contained a clerical error stating the decision became final one day before it really did. Based on the actual date of the hearing, the Governor’s decision was within the review time period.
The Governor’s reversal of a grant of parole by the parole board was supported by some evidence. The Governor reversed the grant of parole because he opined petitioner did not have an adequate post-release plan, and because he believed petitioner’s actions both after the crime and after a prison-disciplinary action showed petitioner was inclined to avoid responsibility and hide the truth. The Court of Appeal found the Governor’s conclusions about the post-release plans were “suspect.” But the court concluded the other finding was supported by “at least a modicum of evidence in the record.” So, the Governor’s decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious and was upheld.