The court ordered the parole board to hold another parole suitability hearing for the defendant in this highly fact specific case. The court ordered the parole board to use the following guidelines: the gravity and the public safety implications of Ramirez’s offenses as they compare with other similar offenses and in light of the terms for such offenses as set by the Legislature. The Board was also ordered to consider these factors as favoring the application for a parole date: Ramirez’s psychological profile (unless a new one indicates otherwise), his work history, education, and volunteer work in his 17 years of imprisonment. The court opined that the Board had arbitrarily failed to consider that appellant’s offenses were not particularly aggravated, when compared to other robberies and murders. The gun he held during the robberies was unloaded, and the murder resulted from the accidental death of a crime partner while fleeing the scene. Additionally, the Board’s finding that Ramirez needed further therapy lacked even some evidence, in light of the undisputed evidence of his successful participation in many such programs, and the opinion of a psychiatrist that there was no psychiatric reason to deny parole.