The Governor’s reversal of a finding by the Board of Parole Hearings that a defendant is suitable for parole must reflect due consideration of the specific factors considered by the board, as applied to the prisoner in accordance with applicable legal standards. In 2006, the Board of Parole Hearings found defendant suitable for parole. In October of the same year, the Governor acknowledged defendant’s rehabilitative efforts in prison, positive evaluations by mental health and correctional professionals, work plans, and relationships with family and friends, but based on the 1984 committing offense, and 1989 and 1991 misconduct in prison, found that defendant’s release on parole posed an unreasonable risk of danger to society and reversed the boards decision. The appellate court granted defendants habeas petition, finding that the Governor’s written decision did not contain the requisite explicit articulation of a rational nexus between the facts and current dangerousness. The matter was remanded for reconsideration.