Parole is properly denied where lack of insight into the circumstances surrounding the offense provide a nexus between the commitment offense and current dangerousness. When petitioner was 20 years old, she participated a drive-by shooting which resulted in the death of a young woman whom she and the co-defendant knew and disliked. Initially, the parole board granted parole based in part on the fact that petitioner accepted responsibility for her actions. The Governor reversed the grant of parole finding petitioner still posed a danger to society based not only on the gravity of the offense, but also petitioner’s lack of insight regarding the circumstances of the crime. The trial court denied petitioner’s habeas petition because a new report in which petitioner minimized her involvement in the offense was new evidence supporting the Governor’s decision. This habeas petition in the Court of Appeal followed and the decision was affirmed. The Governor concluded that petitioner’s lack of insight regarding the circumstances surrounding the offense demonstrated a potential for future dangerousness. And the doctor’s report presents “some evidence” in the record to support this decision to deny parole.