The Departure of the BPH’s Executive Officer Jennifer Shaffer (2011-2024) from the Board marks the end of an Era!

After a remarkable tenure marked by visionary leadership and unwavering dedication, Jennifer Shaffer, our esteemed Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) Executive Officer, is embarking on a well-deserved retirement in 2025. Her years of service (June 2011 to December 2024) have shaped this organization, leaving an indelible legacy of growth and innovation. As we (all stakeholders) celebrate her accomplishments, we also warmly welcome Scott Wyckoff, who will be stepping into the role of Executive Officer.  

Prior Governor Brown appointed Shaffer to the board office in 2011, and lauded her “steady hand” leadership of what, during her administration, grew from a panel of 12 commissioners to the current group of 21.

The departure of Jennifer Shaffer from the board marks the end of an era of progress and change at the BPH. New laws, new social attitudes and studies have contributed to the change, but it took an individual with enough confidence to buck the ‘old boys system,’ acknowledge the humanity of those incarcerated and intent on following the law to make that progress.

Jennifer’s hope is that “ the Board will continue to seek ways to help the public better understand the process through meaningful outreach, publications like the Parole Hearing Process Handbook, and videos like those recently produced by the nonprofit Parole Justice Works that explain the parole hearing process from the perspective of formerly incarcerated persons, Board members and staff, attorneys, victims, and survivors.”

Jennifer's contributions over her distinguished career (over 13 years) are truly too numerous to fully recount. However, amidst her vast achievements, we would be remiss not to highlight the increase Grants of Parole, Increased transparency of the Board,  Professional training for state appointed attorneys, as well as the increase in Board size to accommodate new laws – these are pivotal moments.These accomplishments, among many others, have profoundly shaped the BPH/CDCR organization and will hopefully continue under the new Director.

Increase in parole grant rate as noted below:

•                   Grants rose from 466 in 2011 to 1433 in 2023
•                  Over 15,000 grants between 2011 and the end of 2023
•                   Over 1,000 grants in 2024
•                   Current grant rate for completed hearings is 34% (2023)
•                   Change in board size from 12 to 21 commissioners

 Some of the Biggest changes to the Parole hearing Process as seen by Jennifer:

“There have been many significant changes regarding the parole hearing process over the past 14 years. We have seen parole eligibility expand with changes in the law implementing youth offender hearings and elderly parole hearings. We have witnessed the Board become more professional and make evidence-based decisions through extensive training, greater transparency, and by adopting a structured decision-making framework. Also, we used technology to automate and streamline many administrative aspects of the parole hearing process, to go “paperless,” and to conduct hearings by videoconference. “The changes have been significant, and we have learned a lot about the transformative power of hope and the resiliency of the human spirit from all those who participate in the parole hearing process.”

================================================  

The new 2025 Executive Director of the Board of Parole Hearings - Scott Wyckoff

Although the face at the helm may be unfamiliar, Scott Wyckoff, the new Executive Director of the Board of Parole Hearings, wants to assure all stakeholders, especially lifers, that there are no major, sudden changes in the works. Wyckoff, appointed to the position in early November by Governor Newsom, was sworn in to the position on January 2, 2025, following the retirement of long-time BPH Director Jennifer Shaffer.

Relatively new to the parole side of CDCR, Wyckoff most recently served as Deputy Legal Affairs Secretary in the Governor’s office since 2022, so he is no stranger to issues confronting CDCR. With his proven expertise and fresh perspective, we are confident that Scott will guide the BPH towards continued success, building upon the strong foundation Jennifer has laid.

Since his swearing in Wyckoff has spent extensive time learning the process and personalities involved in parole hearings, including the subject of those hearings, by attending random parole hearings on many days, and meeting a list of stakeholders, including Life Support Alliance (LSA) staff.

Wyckoff was personable, outgoing and receptive to questions and comments and seems as interested in receiving incoming information and observations as dishing them out. He emphasized he’s still learning the ins-and-outs of the parole process, practices and people involved. In previous comments Wyckoff had noted the ‘profound’ impact of Shaffer’s 13-year tenure, adding he hoped to build on that legacy.

He did, however, enunciate intention to maintain the transparent habits of the Board’s last several years in making figures on number of hearings, number of grants and similar data available to the general public via such avenues as the yearly Significant Events report and similar reports lending to maintaining and increasing the transparency of the Board’s history and current operations. Wyckoff also expressed in desire and intention to meet lifers in person, if no other way than by attending some groups and classes, responding to a specific invitation to drop in on any of LSA’s weekly lifer groups or scheduled workshops at any time. (See LSA information below)

While we bid a fond farewell to Jennifer and celebrate her incredible legacy from her years as BPH Executive Officer, we eagerly anticipate the future under Scott Wyckoff’s leadership. As he steps into the role of Executive Director in 2025, we look forward to collaborating with him, building upon past successes, and embarking on a new chapter of growth and innovation for BPH.

-----------------------------------------

 If you have  comments  to offer to the New BPH Executive Officer the Life Support Alliance (LSA) group has the  opportunity to route those comments through them (LSA) to BPH offices.

Please make these serious, considered comments, not simple complaints about your personal situation/denial. You need not sign your name and envelopes that would provide that information will not be included in the messages we forward to Wyckoff. . Please be succinct — it is a chance to have your voice heard

Send your comments to:

LSA  /  Comments to Director

PO Box 277

Rancho Cordova, Ca. 95741

 

A huge shout-out to Vanessa of the LSA group, whose tireless advocacy for the Lifer population makes a profound difference!

Assembly Bill (AB) 1186, (2024) became Effective January 1, 2025 and Introduced Changes To The Collection Of Restitution Fines In California. CDCR taking action to clear the books, accordingly.

 

  Cal. Pen. Code Section 1202.4:  In Part states:

 Restitution-->

(a)(1). It is the intent of the Legislature that a victim of crime who incurs an economic loss as a result of the commission of a crime shall receive restitution directly from a defendant convicted of that crime.

(2) Upon a person being convicted of a crime in the State of California, the court shall order the defendant to pay a fine in the form of a penalty assessment in accordance with Section 1464……,

Under existing law:  Courts impose restitution fines as part of sentencing, with funds deposited into the Restitution Fund. Assembly Bill (AB) 1186, signed into law on September 28, 2024, and effective January 1, 2025 introduced changes to the collection of restitution fines in California.

  Implementation  of  AB1186 – Changes  to Restitution Fines:

Summary and Background provided by CDCR (below):

 Under existing law:

□             Courts impose restitution fines as part of sentencing, with funds deposited into the Restitution Fund.

□             Juvenile courts could also impose restitution fines on minors 

 adjudged wards of the court.

What’s Changing?

Effective January 1, 2025, AB 1186 introduces the following updates:

□             Restitution fines and related fees become unenforceable and uncollectible 10 years after the date they are imposed by the court (excluding fines under Penal Code section 1202.45). This does not include direct orders of restitution for victims.

□             Juvenile restitution fines are eliminated, aligning with the closure of the Division of Juvenile Justice in June 2023.

 

Understanding Restitution: Fines vs. Direct Orders

When a person is convicted of a crime, the court may impose two (2) types of restitution:

Restitution fines:

□             A set amount paid to the Restitution Fund, which supports victims of crime through the California Victim Compensation Board.

□             These fines are unrelated to specific victims and are based on 

 the nature of the offense.

 

Direct orders of restitution:

□             Compensation paid directly to victims to cover losses caused by the incarcerated person (e.g., medical bills, lost wages, property damage).

□             Direct orders are case-specific and enforceable until fully paid.

Important Note:

Assembly Bill (AB) 1186 impacts restitution fines only. Direct orders of restitution remain unaffected and continue to be collected.

 

Implementation  Details

The Office of Victim and Survivor Rights and Services (OVSRS) is updating the Trust Restitution Accounting and Canteen System (TRACS) to comply with AB 1186.

Key actions include:

□             Automatic termination of collections for restitution fines:

o      Starting January 1, 2025, TRACS will stop collection on restitution fines imposed more than 10 years ago.

o      Moving forward, collections will automatically cease 10 years after the fine’s imposition date.

o      Juvenile restitution fines are no longer collected as of June 2023.

 

Key Notes:

•         AB 1186 impacts restitution fines only; there are no changes to the collection of direct orders of restitution.

•         Additional fines may be imposed in some cases alongside the restitution fine. These auxiliary fines are typically stayed and only enforced if the individual does not successfully complete parole. They are not commonly issued and function as supplementary penalties.

•         The “Date of Imposition” refers to the sentencing date listed on the Abstract of Judgment or Court Minute Order.

•         No refunds will be issued for collections made before January 1, 2025.

 

EDITOR’s OPINION:  AB 1186's provision limiting the enforceability of misdemeanor restitution orders after 10 years offers several societal benefits. Primarily, it acknowledges the realities of recidivism and the counterproductive nature of perpetually burdening individuals with debt, especially for lower-level offenses. By providing a defined timeframe for restitution in misdemeanor cases, the bill offers a pathway for offenders to reintegrate into society without the crushing weight of unpayable debt, which can often be a barrier to employment, housing, and overall stability.

This promotes rehabilitation and reduces the likelihood of reoffending driven by economic desperation. Furthermore, it focuses resources on collecting restitution in more serious felony cases where the impact on victims is often greater and the need for restitution may be more pressing. This targeted approach allows for more efficient allocation of law enforcement and court resources, ultimately benefiting society by prioritizing the most impactful cases and promoting successful reintegration for misdemeanor offenders.

 

For further questions or clarifications, contact the Office of Victim and Survivor Rights and Services, Restitution Services Unit at: CDCRRestitution@cdcr.ca.gov or

Phone 1-877-256-6877

People v. Drake A133147 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 10, 2012): Is a Denial of Parole or worse a Vacated Grant of Parole Legal when BPH alleges Avoidance of Restitution?

  

WE ASK:

Is a Denial of Parole or worse a Vacated Grant of Parole Constitutionally Legal when it is based on an inmate's alleged Avoiding of Restitution by diverting funds from a CDCR account?,

1) Must individuals be given FAIR NOTICE of prohibited conduct before such conduct can be sanctioned; in the case of inmates, that sanction could come in the form of a parole denial.

Currently, the legislature, CDCR nor the BPH have any written statute or regulation, which prohibits anyone who, is not incarcerated from mailing any money to the prison trust account of any inmate. Therefore, with no regulation specifically addressing restitution avoidance, the board’s use of this issue to deny parole could arguably be considered use of an what we remember as "underground regulations"

2) Void for vagueness: the United States Supreme Court has held that “[i]t is a basic principle of due process that any enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined…[w]e insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning. Secondly, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on…a subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application.”

3) Would  the legal concept of ‘waiver and estoppel’ apply against BPH/CDCR’s long history of, turning a blind eye to the process, now commonly referred to as Restitution Avoidance?

 At least 2 reasons why (in our opinion) a parallel"creditor" estoppel argument could be made against CDCR and/or BPH:

 Equitable Estoppel: This occurs when the creditor's (CDCR) conduct leads the debtor (INMATES) to reasonably believe that 's CDCR "laissez faire" attitude/conduct induced reliance on the inmate to continue their practice of fund shuffle, while incarcerated.

Specifically, CDCR’s decades-long pattern of ignoring the restitution payments would preclude them from suddenly changing direction and taking punitive action on a long-term practice.

 Laches: If the creditor (CDCR) unreasonably delays in asserting their rights to collect the debt (Restitution), and the inmate (or family members) are prejudiced by this delay, the doctrine of laches may apply. This can bar the creditor/CDCR from asserting "avoidance of restitution"  if the delay has caused the debtor/inmate (or family members) to suffer harm. For example, lose family money or lose a Grant of Parole.

SIDE-NOTE: Many Lifers caught up in this “recent” BPH issue have been adamant that they know about their restitution obligation and fully intend to pay back the restitution once they’ve paroled and become employed. Many inmates do not see that their financial obligation is a burden to be shouldered by their friends or family.

4)  Does an inmate have any legal right to the money solicited by letter (or other) from those outside of CDCR? There is no "property" of his that he was attempting to conceal in order to avoid the restitution order. Thus, facts do not support an attempt to violate section 155.5, subdivision (b).  We argue that at most, he was soliciting a gift of money to be sent to him through another inmate.

The above enumerated Items are some POINTS to PONDER. 

For point #4, see the 2012, (non-published) People v. Drake  A133147 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 10, 2012) case is an interesting reading-->

==========================================================
A big SHOUT OUT to Attorney Lysa Darden for digging this 2012 case out of the weeds…. Although it is not a PUBLISHED case – there is a plausible legal argument to be made in favor of the inmates that recently being Denied Parole or worse have their Grant vacated because of alleged Restitution Avoidance!

 In Short: In 2012,  an inmate was convicted of attempting to avoid the payment of restitution, within the meaning of Penal Code section 155.5, subdivision (b), while he was incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison (Pelican Bay). 

In the End:  The Attorney General agrees with appellant's argument that there is no evidence the money he sought was "his own property." Therefore, both parties request that the judgment be reversed.

========================================================

A133147: 07-10-2012

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ERIC JOSEPH DRAKE, Defendant and Appellant. RUVOLO

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Del Norte County Super. Ct. No115045)

 

 I.    INTRODUCTION

        Appellant Eric Joseph Drake was convicted of attempting to avoid the payment of restitution,

within the meaning of Penal Code section 155.5, subdivision (b), while he was incarcerated at

Pelican Bay State Prison (Pelican Bay). He contends on appeal that the conviction, which

followed a court trial on stipulated facts, was not supported by substantial evidence and must be

reversed. The Attorney General concedes that there was insufficient evidence to support the

conviction and joins appellant's request that this court reverse the judgment.

 

II.  FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUNDS

        An information was filed by the Del Norte County District Attorney on May 10, 2011, charging

appellant with one count of attempted evasion of the payment of restitution, alleging that he

attempted to sell, convey, assign, or conceal his property with the intent of impairing his financial

ability to pay restitution, in violation of section 155.5, subdivision (b). The information also

included two separate special sentencing enhancement allegations.

        As part of a negotiated disposition, it was agreed that appellant would waive a jury trial, and if a

court trial resulted in a conviction as to count one, the prosecution would agree to a sentence of eight

months in state prison, and a dismissal of the special allegations in the information. Consistent

with the parties' agreement, at his arraignment, appellant entered a plea of not guilty, waived a

jury trial, and requested a court trial on the information. The trial court requested the parties

to file trial briefs forthwith.

        From the subsequently filed briefs it became apparent that the charge in the information arose

from events which occurred while appellant was incarcerated in Pelican Bay as a result of two

convictions for second degree robbery with a firearm enhancement (§§ 211, 12022.53, subd. (b),

respectively). As part of the sentence he received for these convictions, appellant had been ordered

to pay restitution in the amount of $2,030. In October 2010, appellant attempted to send a

letter to a correspondent outside of Pelican Bay requesting that they send money to appellant by

way of a deposit into the prison account of another inmate. This would allow appellant, who was on

lockdown, to purchase items at the prison canteen through the other inmate, who was not on

lockdown. Also, following this procedure would allow appellant to avoid the confiscation of half of

the amount deposited to satisfy the outstanding restitution order. The letter was intercepted by a

correctional officer in the outgoing mail, and was then confiscated by prison officials before it left

Pelican Bay. The parties entered into a formal stipulation concerning these facts for purposes of

 the court trial.     

        The court trial took place on August 18, 2011. Appellant was found guilty of violating section

155.5, subdivision (b). Presentence reports were waived, as well as a referral to the probation

department. The court then sentenced appellant to eight months in state prison, consecutive to the

sentence he was then serving in Pelican Bay, with additional fines and penalties imposed. This appeal followed.

 

III. DISCUSSION

        Appellant contends that the stipulated facts to not support an attempt to violate section 155.5,

subdivision (b). He argues that there was no evidence that he had any legal right to the money

he solicited by letter from those outside of Pelican Bay. Thus, there was no "property" of his that he

was attempting to conceal in order to avoid the restitution order. At most, he was soliciting a gift

of money to be sent to him through another inmate. Section 155.5, subdivision (b), provides: "(b) Any

defendant who is ordered to pay any fine or restitution in connection with the commission of a

felony and who, after the plea or judgment and prior to sentencing for the same felony offense, or

during the period that a restitution order remains unsatisfied and enforceable, sells, conveys,

assigns, or conceals his or her property with the intent to lessen or impair his or her financial

ability to pay in full any fine or restitution which he or she may lawfully be ordered to pay or to

avoid forfeiture of assets derived from either criminal profiteering pursuant to Chapter 9

(commencing with Section 186) of this title or trafficking in controlled substances pursuant to

Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 11470) of Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code, is

guilty of a felony." (Italics added.)

 

        The Attorney General agrees with appellant's argument that there is no evidence the money he sought was "his own property." Therefore, both parties request that the judgment be reversed.  We agree, and we reverse the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. *

 

IV.  DISPOSITION

        The judgment is reversed.

 

.