Governor’s denial of parole upheld where defendant’s superficial explanation for killing of two-year-old boy and mental instability showed present dangerousness. Defendant received a life sentence for the 1980 fatal stabbing of his girlfriend’s son. The Parole Board granted parole; the Governor reversed the decision, finding defendant remained a current danger if released. Defendant appealed. Held: Affirmed. An appellate court reviews the decision of the Board or governor to assure the defendant was afforded due process in the consideration of his application and that the decision was not arbitrary. Due process is satisfied when there is some evidence the defendant remains a current danger to public safety. Defendant has not provided an adequate explanation for the commitment crime; he in part linked it to the violence he exhibited towards his girlfriend. He told the Board there was no reason for taking the life of a two-year-old and, when pressed, said he treated the child as he had been treated. These responses do not reflect insight into the offense and ring false. Defendant has difficulty controlling his anger and struggles with occasional depression. This provides some evidence of continued, present dangerousness.