The infamous Menendez brothers are poised to become the "inaugural individuals" to navigate California's new Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) Clemency process via a Clemency Investigation Hearing in June 2025.

The Menendez brothers, Erik and Lyle, who have remained incarcerated at RJ Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego under life sentences without the possibility of parole, are poised to become the inaugural individuals to navigate California's newly implemented Board of Parole Hearings Clemency process. This significant development will unfold in June 2025, as the Brothers are scheduled to undergo a Clemency Investigation Hearing akin to a Lifer Parole Hearing, marking a pivotal moment in their decades-long confinement and the application of this revised system.

As part of a Clemency case - Lyle and Erik Menendez will appear at independent parole board hearings on June 13, (a.k.a Clemency Investigation Hearing) according to the Governor.

As a quick reminder The Menendez brothers' murder case captivated the nation with its shocking details of the brutal shotgun slayings of their wealthy parents in their Beverly Hills mansion in 1989.

On Oct. 24, 2024 Gascón (DA back then) announced he was recommending the brothers' sentence of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) be removed, and they should instead be sentenced for murder, which would be a sentence of 50 years to life.

On Nov. 5, 2024 Gascón lost his race for reelection to now new Prosecutor  Nathan Hochman. Due to complications (read below) the resentencing hearing was delayed until further notice.

On Feb. 26, 2025 California Gov. Gavin Newsom spoke out about the brothers' other potential path to freedom: their request to the governor for Clemency.

Newsom said he’s ordering the parole board to launch a "comprehensive risk assessment" investigation into whether the brothers pose "an unreasonable risk to the public" if released.

What is the role of the BPH in the New Clemency process?

 

California’s Constitution gives the Governor authority to grant cle m enc y in the form of commutations, pardons, and reprieves. The Governor also has the authority to as k th e Bo ar d of Pa ro le H ea ri ng s to

in ve st ig at e clemency applications. The Governor routinely sends cases to the Board for investigation and relies on their findings to decide whether to grant clemency. In late February 2025, the Governor sent two such commutation applications to the Board for investigation under this provision.

 Under a different law, the Board has the authority to send c om m u ta t io n  

re co m m en da ti on s to the Governor and re se nt e nc in g  re co m m e nd at io ns to courts. The Governor and the judges are not obligated to act on these recommendations. Currently, the Board is working to have a process in place for making those recommendations.

 

What policy change to Board practices has the Governor proposed?

 

The Governor has asked the Board to update its regulations to create a process by which the Board will only use its authority to recommend people for commutation and resentencing after a risk assessment.

 

The proposed process will:

-Focus on public safety

-Give crime victims and district attorneys the opportunity to meaningfully participate before a clemency or resentencing decision is made

-Be consistently and fairly applied

The Governor asked the Board to model the new process on its existing parole hearing risk assessment process. The Board’s process for assessing parole suitability is accurate – people released after a parole hearing have lo w re c id iv is m

rat es . These regulations will create a transparent, fair, and risk-based process for the Board to exercise its authority to recommend cases for clemency and resentencing.

 

How will the proposed process work?

 

It is anticipated that the Board’s proposal will include the following components. People who meet specified eligibility criteria will receive an initial review by parole hearing officers, similar to the Board’s current process for a consultation. If the hearing officer decides to advance these candidates in the process, a forensic psychologist will conduct an in-depth Comprehensive Risk Assessment. Parole hearing officers will then conduct a hearing where the district attorney may participate, as well as victims and next-of-kin who receive support from CD CR ’s O ff ic e o f V ic ti m an d S ur vivo r R ig ht s an d Se rv ic es . The hearing officers will review the Comprehensive Risk Assessment, correctional records, and other information and determine if the person currently poses an unreasonable risk to public safety. If the person is found suitable, the Board will share its findings with the Governor and courts. The process does not confer any rights on the person and does not entitle them to release from prison unless the Governor or a court acts to change their sentence.

 

When will this proposed process go into effect?

 

The Board will implement the proposed proposal after it finalizes the policy and completes a public rulemaking process. This is required because, when adopting new regulations, every department in the executive branch of California state government must follow the Administrative Procedure Act and regulations adopted by the O ff ic e of A dm i ni st ra ti ve La w . This rulemaking process, which can take sometime, gives the public a meaningful opportunity to participate in the adoption of new regulations.

 

 

EDITORIAL COMMENT:

This new avenue within the California legal framework offers a significant and hopeful prospect for individuals serving life sentences without the possibility of parole. The forthcoming process, empowering the Board of Parole Hearings to forward commutation recommendations to the Governor and resentencing proposals to the courts, signifies a crucial step towards acknowledging potential for change and offering a pathway for review within a system that previously appeared absolute. As the Board diligently establishes the mechanisms for these recommendations, it introduces a vital element of flexibility and the potential for a second look, fostering a sense of possibility where finality once reigned.

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

 

A SHORT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND OF THE MENENDEZ BROTHERS’ CASE

2018

In 2018, Lyle and Erik Menendez were reunited for the first time since 1996, when Lyle Menendez was moved to Erik Menendez’s prison: the R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego.

2023

After spending decades behind bars, in 2023, the brothers filed a habeas corpus petition for a review of new evidence not presented at the original trial. One piece of evidence is allegations from Roy Rosselló, a former member of the boy band Menudo, who revealed in the 2023 docuseries "Menendez + Menudo: Boys Betrayed" that he was raped by Jose Menendez. The second piece of evidence is a letter Erik Menendez wrote to his cousin eight months before the murders detailing his alleged abuse. The cousin testified about the alleged abuse at trial, but the letter -- which would have corroborated the cousin's testimony -- wasn't unearthed until several years ago, according to the brothers' attorney. Through the habeas corpus petition, the court could reverse the conviction or reopen proceedings.

September 2024

In September 2024, Ryan Murphy's fictional series, "Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story," premiered on Netflix, bringing new attention to the infamous murders.

October 2024

Weeks later, on Oct. 7, a documentary on the Menendez brothers was released on Netflix. The two Netflix programs gained a following online from a younger generation who empathized with the brothers' alleged abuse and started advocating for their release. On Oct. 16, nearly two dozen Menendez family members added to that momentum when they united at a news conference to urge Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón to recommend resentencing. On Oct. 24, Gascón announced he was recommending the brothers' sentence of life without the possibility of parole be removed, and they should instead be sentenced for murder, which would be a sentence of 50 years to life. Because both brothers were under 26 at the time of the crimes, they would be eligible for parole immediately with the new sentence.

November and December 2024

On Nov. 5, Gascón lost his race for reelection to now new Prosecutor  Nathan Hochman.

Hochman became DA in December and said he wanted to review all of the evidence -- including prison records and trial transcripts -- before deciding if he'll recommend resentencing.

February 2025

On Feb. 21, Hochman announced that he asked the court to deny the brothers' habeas corpus petition, which aims to get a new trial or the case tossed out. The DA argued the new evidence the defense presented wasn't credible or admissible.

Hochman also said he would announce a decision on resentencing in the coming weeks. If Hochman recommends resentencing, the final decision then goes to the judge, and the parole board must also approve.

On Feb. 26, California Gov. Gavin Newsom spoke out about the brothers' third potential path to freedom: their request to the governor for clemency.

Newsom said he’s ordering the parole board to launch a "comprehensive risk assessment" investigation into whether the brothers pose "an unreasonable risk to the public" if released.

March 2025

On March 10, Hochman announced he's asking the court to withdraw the previous district attorney's motion for resentencing, alleging the brothers never accepted responsibility for their actions and slamming their claims of self-defense as part of a litany of "lies."

April 2025

On April 11, following an hour long hearing, Judge Michael Jesic denied District Attorney Hochman's motion to withdraw the resentencing petition, marking a win for the brothers' case. The brothers' long-awaited resentencing hearing was expected to begin on April 17. Attorney Mark Geragos, representing Erik and Lyle Menendez, who were sentenced in 1996 to life in prison without the possibility of parole for fatally shooting their parents, speaks to the media outside of court after a resentencing hearing in their case, Thursday, April 17, 2025, in Los Angeles.

But the night before, prosecutors in a filing urged the court to obtain a copy of the parole board's recently completed risk assessment, which was conducted as a part of the separate clemency path. The prosecution's filing urged the judge to delay the sentencing if the court couldn't get a copy of the report in time for the hearing in the resentencing path. In the end, the resentencing hearing did not proceed as planned, as the governor’s office said it would allow the judge to seek the risk assessment reports.  The resentencing hearing is delayed until further notice.

The brothers' next hearing is to determine whether the resentencing path should factor in the newly completed parole board's Comprehensive Risk Assessment (CRA) and whether DA Hochman and his team will be removed from the case.

People v. Batten, Case #: A169597, CA Court of Appeal, District: 1 DCA, Division: 4, Opinion Date: 03/17/2025: Some Lifers upon Parole Violations are not returned to BPH jurisdiction.

 

LIFER PAROLEE: Can Parolees (Lifers) be remanded to California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) on a Parole Violation (PV) or not and thus be remanded and eligible to punishments like other Parole Violations? 

It depends – see People v. Reed (2024) and People v. Batten (2025).

BOTH Case Summaries:

People v. Reed (2024):

The trial court entered orders revoking defendant's three-year term of parole and remanding him to the custody of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the jurisdiction of the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) for purposes of future parole consideration pursuant to Pen. Code, § 3000.08, subd. (h). (Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, Nos. CT22000854 and CRI2527813, Russell S. Roeca, Judge.)

The Court of Appeal reversed the orders remanding defendant to CDCR custody and the jurisdiction of the BPH. The court concluded that, in light of Pen. Code, § 3000.01, the provisions of Pen. Code, § 3000.1, did not apply to defendant. Given that, by its plain language, the mandatory remand-to-CDCR-custody provision (Pen. Code, § 3000.08, subd. (h)) is triggered if § 3000.1 applies, the court further concluded § 3000.08, subd. (h), did not apply to defendant. Therefore, the trial court erred by remanding defendant to the custody of CDCR and the jurisdiction of the BPH pursuant to § 3000.08, subd. (h). Because § 3000.08, subd. (h), was not applicable to defendant, once he was found in violation of parole it was for the trial court to modify or revoke parole pursuant to its authority as set forth in § 3000.08, subds. (f), (g). (Opinion by Petrou, J., with Fujisaki, Acting P. J., and Rodríguez, J., concurring.)

(People v. Reed (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 43, 43 [322 Cal.Rptr.3d 703].)

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

People v. Batten, (2025)

Case #: A169597, Court: CA Court of Appeal, District: 1 DCA, Division: 4, Opinion Date: 03/17/2025

The Court of Appeal holds that the disparity in treatment of those released on parole prior to July 2020 and those released after July 2020 does not violate equal protection under the rational basis test. Defendant was released on lifetime parole in 2017 after serving a term for murder. In 2023, defendant was found in violation of parole and was remanded to the custody of CDCR under PC 3000.08.  Under PC 3000.01, enacted in 2020, those convicted of murder but released on parole after July 2020 would have been placed on parole for only three years and would have been eligible for punishments other than mandatory remand to the CDCR.

HOLDINGS: [1]-Rational basis review applies with respect to a disparity between the mandatory remand provision for a parole violation in Pen. Code, § 3000.08, subd. (h), and the alternative sanctions provision under § 3000.8, subds. (f) & (g). Although defendant contended it was irrational to remand her to the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for her two admitted parole violations (driving under the influence and failing to inform her parole agent of her arrest), the court found that defendant's arguments invited it to perform the type of second-guessing of policy choices that rational basis review is designed to avoid. The Legislature could have rationally decided not to invalidate the parole board's reasoning retroactively by freeing all existing parolees like defendant from the mandatory remand provision.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the People that rational basis review applies and that there is a rational basis to treat the two groups of inmates differently.

(People v. Batten (Mar. 17, 2025, No. A169597) ___Cal.App.5th___ [2025 Cal. App. LEXIS 164, at *1].)

 

The full opinion is normally available on the courts website here: https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A169597.PDF

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

Pen. Code, §§ 1203.2 and 3000.08, establish the statutory framework for parole revocation proceedings.

Historically, responsibility for parole revocation rested with the Board of Parole Hearings. In 2012, the Legislature amended Pen. Code, § 1203.2, to incorporate parole into the statutes governing revocation of other types of statutory supervision, shifting jurisdiction over most parole revocation petitions to the superior courts. Currently, Pen. Code, §§ 1203.2 and 3000.08, establish the statutory framework for parole revocation proceedings. Upon a finding that a parolee has violated the conditions of parole, a trial court generally has the discretion to modify or revoke parole, including the authority to sentence the person to county jail for up to 180 days, or refer the person to a reentry court or other evidence-based program. § 3000.08, subds. (f) & (g). However, once a court finds that a lifetime parolee has violated conditions of parole or the law, a special rule applies and those options do not exist. In such cases (lifetime parole), § 3000.08, subd. (h), is triggered, which requires the court to revoke parole and remand the parolee to California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation custody.

 

Pen. Code, § 3000.1, sets out a term of lifetime parole for two groups of inmates: (1) those sentenced under Pen. Code, § 1168, for any offense of first or second degree murder with a maximum term of life imprisonment; and (2) certain sex offenders sentenced to a life term. § 3000.1, subd. (a). Section 3000.1 was last amended in 2014. In 2020, the Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 118, which implemented Pen. Code, § 3000.01. Section 3000.01 governs the periods of parole for persons who are subject to supervision under § 3000.08, and were released from state prison on or after July 1, 2020. 3000.01, subd. (a). Section 3000.01—"except as provided in subdivision (d) and notwithstanding any other law"—limits parole terms to three years for inmates serving a life sentence. § 3000.01, subd. (b). Section 3000.01, subd. (d), sets out only two exceptions: (1) if the underlying offense requires registration as a sex offender, and (2) if the parole term at the time of the commission of the offense was shorter than the terms in § 3000.01, subd. (b). § 3000.01, subd. (d)

 

Pen. Code, § 3000.01, states that it applies "notwithstanding any other law," which suggests the Legislature intended this section to take precedence over any conflicting provisions. § 3000.01, subd. (b). It is true that, despite adding § 3000.01 limiting the parole term for those released from prison on or after July 1, 2020, the Legislature did not amend the relevant provisions of statutes that provide for longer parole terms, such as Pen. Code, §§ 3000, 3000.08, and 3000.1. But while these statutory inconsistencies put trial courts in a bit of a conundrum when advising of the parole term, every appellate court to consider the issue has concluded the term limits in § 3000.01 override conflicting preexisting provisions.

 

For persons sentenced to life for murder who were released on parole on or after July 1, 2020, Pen. Code, §§ 3000.01 and 3000.1, impose conflicting terms of parole. Hence, only one of the two statutes can control, and the Legislature signaled its intent for the later-enacted statute—§ 3000.01—to preempt the conflicting, preexisting statute by including "notwithstanding any other law" in § 3000.01, subd. (b).

While a parolee who is no longer subject to mandatory remand under Pen. Code, § 3000.08, subd. (h), may be punished only as provided in § 3000.08, subds. (f) & (g), for any parole violation, Pen. Code, §§ 3000.01 and 3000.1, in no way alter or limit the ability of the appropriate prosecuting agency to seek new criminal charges predicated upon the conduct that led to the violation of parole.

 

EDITORIAL: If a Lifer was release on parole BEFORE July 1, 2020 (and violates parole) they will not get the benefit of the People v. Reed case. Thus, they will be remanded to CDCR under the jurisdiction of the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH). They will then be subject to annual Parole Reconsideration (old PC3000) hearings by BPH to see if they are suitable for release. The standard used is the same as the regular Parole Hearingsà  a finding by the Board that they are not an unreasonable risk of danger to society, if released.

Please Support: Bill SB 672 Introduced 2/21/25: The Youth Rehabilitation and Opportunity Act is to reduce the LWOP inmate Youth parole hearing age from under 18 to under 26 years of age.

 

SB 672 (Rubio) is titled "The Youth Rehabilitation and Opportunity Act."

An act to amend Section 3051 of the Penal Code, relating to parole via a new senate bill:

 

SB 672, as introduced, by Senator Susan Rubio [D]:

YOUTH OFFENDER BACKGROUND LAW:

Existing law requires the Board of Parole Hearings to conduct a youth offender parole hearing for offenders sentenced to state prison who committed specified crimes when they were under 25 years of age. Existing law makes a person who was convicted of a controlling offense that was committed when the person was under 18 years of age and for which the sentence is life without the possibility of parole eligible for release on parole at a youth offender hearing by the board during the person’s 25th year of incarceration.

Under existing law, a murder perpetrated by specified means or under certain circumstances is defined as murder of the first degree. Existing law, as added by Proposition 7, an initiative measure approved by the voters at the November 7, 1978, statewide general election, requires that a person convicted of first-degree murder be subject to death or confinement in prison for a term of life without the possibility of parole in any case in which specified special circumstances are charged and found to be true. Proposition 7 does not provide for amendment by the Legislature.

This bill, the Youth Rehabilitation and Opportunity Act, would instead make a person who was convicted of a controlling offense that was committed when the person was 25 years of age or younger and for which they were sentenced to life without the possibility of parole eligible for parole after their 25th year of incarceration, except as specified. The bill would require the board to complete, by January 1, 2028, all hearings for individuals who are or will be entitled to have their parole suitability considered at a youth offender parole hearing by these provisions.

PROMOTING A MORE JUST AND HUMANE APPROACH TO SENTENCING:

SB 672, the Youth Rehabilitation and Opportunity Act, is grounded in the understanding that brain development continues into a person's mid-twenties, impacting judgment and decision-making. Sentencing individuals to life without parole for offenses committed before this developmental stage fails to account for the potential for rehabilitation and change. Extending parole eligibility to those under 26 acknowledges that younger individuals possess a greater capacity for reform, offering a chance for redemption and reintegration into society. This aligns with evolving scientific understanding of adolescent brain development and promotes a more just and humane approach to sentencing, recognizing that even those who commit serious crimes at a young age deserve the opportunity to demonstrate their rehabilitation and contribute positively to society.

HERE ARE THE KEY HIGHLIGHTS:

• Focus on Youth Offender Parole:
• The bill centers on modifying existing laws regarding youth offender parole hearings.
• It aims to expand parole eligibility for those sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for offenses committed when they were 25 years of age or younger.
• It would make those persons eligible for parole after their 25th year of incarceration.
  
  
• Expansion of Eligibility:
• The bill would expand the age range of those eligible for youth offender parole hearings.
• It changes the age from under 18 years of age, to 25 years of age or younger.
  
  
• Timeline for Hearings:
• The bill sets a deadline of January 1, 2028, for the Board of Parole Hearings to complete all required youth offender parole hearings.
•  

In essence, SB 672 seeks to provide a greater opportunity for parole consideration to individuals who committed serious offenses at a younger age even if they received a LIFE WITHOUT POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE (LWOP) SENTENCE.

 Click Here for Bill Summary  

Clich Here for Bill Text Detail