On remand, after an order granting a habeas corpus petition challenging the Governor’s denial of the board’s recommendation for parole, the Governor may consider new evidence as to petitioner’s risk to public safety. In 2006, the appellate court granted appellant’s habeas corpus petition challenging the Governor’s denial of parole, finding that the denial did not contain the “explicit ‘articulation of a rational nexus between the facts and current dangerousness'” and did not cite the mental state evidence as to dangerousness, remanded the matter with direction to reconsider. On reconsideration, the Governor reviewed a 2008 risk assessment and again reversed the board’s recommendation. In this second habeas petition, the court rejected appellant’s argument that the Governor was restricted to review of the evidence before him at the 2006 review. Because the main consideration in assessing suitability for parole is public safety, evidence developed after remand is relevant to the second review.