Amazon New Book : ** STANDING UP FOR LIFERS ** Ten Lessons from Inside California’s Parole Hearings

What Lifers Must Know | October 2026

“The question is never what a person did. It is who they are now.”

After more than twenty-five years of representing incarcerated men and women at Lifer Parole Suitability Hearings — across all thirty-plus California state prisons — I have written the book I wish I had when I started this work. Standing Up for Lifers: A Renegade Attorney’s Fight Inside the California Parole Hearings (Renegade Attorney Press, 2026) is now available in paperback on Amazon. The Board of Parole Hearings is looking for one thing above all else: genuine insight — real self-awareness. Not rehearsed remorse, but real evidence that the person in front of the commissioners has changed. After hundreds of hearings, I have learned what works, what destroys a case, and what the Board never says out loud but always looks for.  Paperback · $19.95    Available on Amazon

Ten Real Cases, Ten Lessons

The book walks through ten real cases — ranging from homicide to sex offenses and kidnapping — showing what happened inside the hearing room, why commissioners ruled the way they did, and what could have been done differently. It is written for incarcerated individuals, their families, attorneys, forensic psychologists, and advocates. Here is one lesson from each chapter.

1. Current risk must remain the central question.

In Richard Shaputis’s case, age, physical limitations, institutional conduct, and the ability to communicate insight all mattered. The lesson is to connect the evidence to present dangerousness, not merely to recite years served. (Chapter One)

2. Maintaining innocence does not automatically foreclose parole.

Michael Vicks maintained his innocence for decades and nevertheless received a grant. Counsel must distinguish an argument about present risk from an attempt to retry the conviction. (Chapter Two)

3. Insight is not a memorized script.

Michael Reyes’s history included a psychiatric crisis and a complicated relationship with mental-health treatment. A meaningful account of change requires understanding the individual’s actual thinking and behavior, not demanding stock phrases. (Chapter Three)

4. A late disclosure can change how the Board understands the case.

Darnell Carter’s long-concealed information became important to the panel’s understanding of his offense. Candor and a coherent account may matter more than a polished presentation. (Chapter Four)

5. Accountability is not the same as claiming a cure.

Raymond Jackson’s case required confronting serious sexual misconduct, past victimization, and an enduring clinical concern. The persuasive issue was whether he understood and could manage risk — not whether he could promise that every vulnerability had vanished. (Chapter Five)

6. Language and culture can affect whether a panel hears the evidence.

Karim Tehrani’s case involved a Farsi interpreter and assessments by two psychologists who both found low risk. Clear interpretation and careful explanation of the expert record were essential to making that evidence understandable. (Chapter Six)

7. Personal growth is often visible outside formal programs.

Steven Young’s unsolicited scholarship essay illustrated reflection that a certificate alone could not capture. The strongest evidence of change can be a person’s own work, supported by a longer pattern of conduct. (Chapter Seven)

8. A grant may not be the end of the process.

Marcus Webb’s case demonstrates that even after a panel grants parole, review and uncertainty may follow. Clients and families should understand that a favorable hearing decision is an important step, not necessarily immediate release. (Chapter Eight)

9. Difficult facts should be confronted, not minimized.

Daniel Trump’s case involved multiple victims, an accepted diagnosis, and a written accounting of misconduct. The task is to show sustained, credible risk management while recognizing the seriousness of the harm. (Chapter Nine)

10. A false confession can be more damaging than a truthful denial.

Leonard Dominguez’s account changed between hearings; the 2024 panel believed his assertion of innocence but still denied parole. His experience illustrates why no one should invent admissions to satisfy a perceived demand for remorse. (Chapter Ten)

Final Thoughts

The cases in Standing Up for Lifers illustrate that a parole hearing involves more than reviewing an old criminal record. It requires an individualized examination of the person standing before the Board today. For attorneys, families, and incarcerated individuals, the central lesson is that preparation should demonstrate how the person has changed and why that change matters to public safety.

What Others Are Saying

Diane T. Letarte “The Renegade Attorney”

“Working alongside Diane Letarte means working with an attorney who understands the clinical record as well as the legal one. That kind of clinical literacy is rare in a parole hearing advocate. Standing Up for Lifers belongs in the hands of every practitioner who works at the intersection of forensic psychology and parole advocacy.” — Yoshado Lang, Ph.D., Clinical Psychologist

Get the Book

HOW TO GET THE BOOK •    Paperback $19.95 on Amazon •    ISBN: 979-8-9968136-0-5 •    Family or friends can order the paperback and ship it directly to the incarcerated reader: full name, CDCR number, and the institution’s mailing address. •    Check the institution’s mailroom rules before ordering.

LIFER PAROLE HEARING REPRESENTATION Diane T. Letarte, Attorney at Law 1080 Park Blvd., Suite 1008 San Diego, CA 92101   Phone: 619-233-3688 Web: www.dianeletarte.com  DLetarte@earthlink.net

Who they are now is what matters. Start preparing today.

Attorney Diane T. Letarte, M.B.A., J.D., LL.M., M.S. —

Lifer Parole Hearings & Appeals, Youth Offender Parole (SB 260/261/AB 1308), Elderly Parole (AB 3234, AB2727)

Call: 619-233-3688  |   |  Book: www.dianeletarte.com/book/

 

ADVERTISEMENT. This article provides general information and reflections from the author’s practice, not legal advice. Names in the book are changed or withheld except where consent was obtained or the records were public. The endorsement above does not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of any legal matter. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Renegade Attorney Press, San Diego, California.

 

All Eyes on the Governor: AB 2727 and the Future of Elderly Parole by 9/30 ***SIGN or VETO***

 What the Final Elderly Parole Bill Does — and Does Not — Do

What Lifers Must Know | September 2026

AB 2727 (Nguyen, D-Elk Grove), the bill that rewrites California’s Elderly Parole Program for people convicted of certain sex offenses, has cleared the Legislature. After Senate amendments on August 21 and August 28, it passed both the Senate and the Assembly on August 31, 2026, the final night of session. It was enrolled and presented to the Governor, who has until September 30, 2026 to sign or veto it. As of this writing, the Governor has not acted. If signed, its main provisions take effect January 1, 2027.

Here is what the final, enrolled version of the bill actually does — and what it does not do.

What the Enrolled Bill Does

•      Raises elderly parole eligibility to 65 / 25 for specified sex offenses. People sentenced under PC 269 (aggravated sexual assault of a child), PC 288.7 (sex offenses against a child 10 or younger), PC 667.61 (One Strike, including multiple-victim cases), or PC 667.71 (habitual sex offender) — which the Legislative Counsel’s Digest describes as reaching offenses including rape and sodomy — would not be eligible for elderly parole until age 65 with at least 25 years of continuous incarceration on the current sentence. Current law is age 50 with 20 years.

•      Adds a sexual dangerousness screening for lifers. For people serving an indeterminate (life) sentence for a sexually violent offense, the Board must review a sexual dangerousness screening. If the screening indicates the person may qualify as a Sexually Violent Predator, the Board refers the case to the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) for a full SVP evaluation.

•      Gives BPH its own referral power. Until now, SVP referrals came from the CDCR Secretary and applied mainly to determinate-term and parole-revocation cases. The bill lets the BPH Executive Officer refer as well, extends the referral criteria to indeterminate sentences, and allows a referral when release would occur less than four months after a parole grant, or when a parole hearing is coming up within six months.

•      Requires commissioner training in sex offender behaviors and risks for commissioners who conduct these hearings.

•      Resets the calendar on January 1, 2027. CDCR must recalculate Elderly Parole Eligible Dates for the people covered, and BPH must cancel elderly parole hearings that were previously scheduled for them.

Current Law vs. AB 2727 at a Glance

Issue	Current Law	AB 2727 (if signed)
Who is covered	Age 50+ with 20 yrs continuous	Listed sex offenses move to a higher threshold
Listed sex offenses	Age 50 / 20 yrs	Age 65 / 25 yrs
Non-sex-offense lifers	Age 50 / 20 yrs	No change
SVP review	Mainly determinate terms	Life terms screened; possible SVPs sent to DSH
Who refers to DSH	CDCR Secretary	CDCR Secretary or BPH Exec. Officer
Scheduled hearings	Proceed	Cancelled 1/1/2027; dates recalculated
Training	General	Adds sex offender risk training

 

Families should read the chaptered text (once the Governor acts) for the exact list of Penal Code sections covered. That list decides who is in and who is out.

What AB 2727 Does NOT Do

•      It does not change elderly parole for non-sex-offense lifers. If your loved one is serving life for murder, attempted murder, robbery, kidnapping, or any other offense not on the list, the age 50 / 20-year threshold stays exactly where it is.

•      It does not create a permanent ban. The March version would have permanently excluded some offenses and pushed others to age 75 with 30 years served. Both of those ideas were dropped. The final bill raises the threshold; it does not close the door.

•      It does not change the suitability standard. The Board still decides each case individually, and must still give special consideration to advanced age, long-term confinement, and diminished physical condition. Individualized assessment remains the law.

•      It does not eliminate regular parole hearings. Elderly parole is an additional pathway. A person who loses early elderly parole eligibility still has regular parole consideration based on the sentence itself.

How the New SVP Screening Works

For a person serving a life term for a sexually violent offense, a parole grant is no longer the last step. Before release, the Board reviews a sexual dangerousness screening. If the screening indicates the person may qualify as a Sexually Violent Predator, the case is referred to the Department of State Hospitals for a full evaluation. Only if that evaluation supports it can a commitment petition be filed, and the State must then prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person meets the SVP criteria. The screening is a filter, not an automatic commitment — but it adds a second arena that must be prepared for well in advance.

Attorney Tips

Practice Points •      Hearings before 1/1/2027. A covered hearing still on calendar in 2026 may be the one that counts. Be fully prepared. •      Check recalculated dates. After January 1, confirm new eligible dates in CDCR records. •      Build for the screening now. Forensic evaluations, treatment records, insight and a release plan serve both the hearing and the screening. •      Look at every pathway. Regular parole, youth offender parole, and PC 1172.2 compassionate release. •      Retroactivity. New eligibility rules applied to old sentences may raise constitutional questions. Talk to counsel.

What to Watch This Fall

•      The Governor’s decision by September 30. 

•      CDCR and BPH implementation. Watch for guidance on recalculated dates, cancelled hearings, and how the new screening will work in practice.

•      SB 672 / LWOP Reform. Advocates are organizing for a new bill in the 2027–2028 session. Document rehabilitation records now.

The law has moved. So should you.

People v. Brinston (5/2026): when a person's medical condition has drastically worsened - how much weight should an old, stale risk assessment (CRA) still carry?

 What a Recent Court of Appeal Decision 

Means for Compassionate Release Cases 

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

[AUGUST 2026  BLOG POST (late posting on 9/1/2026) ]

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

People v. Brinston (2026) Cal. Ct. App., 1st Dist., Div. 4, 

Case No. A173470 (filed/certified for publication May 28, 2026), 

Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR-24193-1. 

 

A Critical Recent Published Decision

On May 28, 2026, California's First District Court of Appeal issued a published decision that belongs in every compassionate release file: People v. Brinston (A173470). The case addresses a question that comes up constantly in Penal Code § 1172.2 proceedings: when a person's medical condition has drastically worsened since a prior parole denial, how much weight should an old, stale risk assessment still carry?

The Facts

James Brinston was serving 15 years to life for serious sexual offenses when, in 2025, CDCR notified the sentencing court that he had become permanently medically incapacitated — unable to independently perform any basic activities of daily living.

By the time of his § 1172.2 hearing, his condition had become severe. He was belted into a customized wheelchair with no lower extremity function, fused by ankylosing spondylitis [chronic inflammatory form of arthritis] into a state his caregivers described as “like a mannequin,” incontinent of bowel and bladder, suffering from vascular dementia and recurrent strokes, and unable to rotate his neck or raise his shoulders. Every party agreed he was medically incapacitated and presumptively entitled to release under the AB 960 framework.

What the Trial Court Did

Despite that agreement, the trial court denied the petition. It reached back to a 2022 Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) denial — three years earlier — which had found that Brinston lacked insight into his offenses, scored elevated on the Static-99 for sexual re-offense risk, and displayed manipulative thinking. The trial court's theory was that even in his physically devastated state, Brinston could manipulate caregivers into harming others on his behalf.

What the Court of Appeal Held

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding this was an abuse of discretion. It found that the trial court's reliance on a three-year-old risk assessment — made when Brinston was far less incapacitated than he was at the time of the § 1172.2 hearing — was not supported by substantial evidence.

The Court's rule is straightforward and important: where a person's current physical condition forecloses any realistic possibility of committing a qualifying offense, the presumption of release under PC § 1172.2 stands. A stale BPH denial is not a substitute for a contemporaneous, condition-appropriate danger analysis.

Why This Matters for Your Loved One's Case

Brinston establishes that a trial court must evaluate a person's current physical condition — it cannot simply freeze the risk analysis at the point of a prior BPH denial. If your loved one's condition has materially deteriorated since any earlier parole hearing, that deterioration must be documented, presented, and argued to the court as new and controlling evidence.

The State's burden under § 1172.2 is to show an unreasonable risk of danger in the here and now — not three years ago. This is exactly why current, detailed medical documentation from qualified physicians is not optional in compassionate release proceedings. It is the foundation of the case.

----Attorney Tip — Brinston Practice Point

Obtain and submit a detailed, current physician's report that explicitly compares the person's present functional capacity to any prior BPH or court findings. If the BPH denied parole two or three years ago citing physical or risk-related concerns that have since dramatically changed, document that gap precisely.

Brinston gives you the legal framework to argue that an old risk picture no longer reflects reality — but you must build the evidentiary record to support it. Practical steps include:

●        Request the full prior BPH decision and risk-assessment documentation for comparison.

●        Commission a current, independent medical evaluation addressing functional capacity and any change since the prior finding.

●        Have the evaluating physician directly address whether the person's condition forecloses any realistic possibility of reoffending.

●        Present the comparison explicitly to the court — do not assume the court will draw the connection on its own.

The Bottom Line

Brinston is a meaningful tool for families and attorneys pursuing compassionate release under PC § 1172.2, particularly where an earlier parole denial might otherwise be used to override a presumption of release. Courts must look at the person as they are today — not as a stale record once described them.

 

This blog post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is different — consult an attorney to evaluate the specific facts of your loved one's situation.