Menefield v. Bd. Of Parole Hearings
Annotate this CaseThis case is about the validity of a regulation governing a circumstance the Board of Parole Hearings (the board) can consider when determining whether a person convicted of a crime punishable with an indeterminate life sentence is unsuitable for parole: California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 2402(c)(6). In challenging the validity of the regulation, petitioner contended: (1) the regulation lacked clarity because it did not define “serious misconduct,” and thus failed to inform prisoners they may be denied parole for committing minor or administrative infractions; and (2) he should have been permitted to amend his petition for a writ of mandate to include a claim that the regulation was unconstitutionally vague. The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of petitioner’s writ petition on grounds that he failed to state a claim for relief because the regulation at issue does not lack clarity. Furthermore, petitioner did not state sufficient facts to support a claim that the regulation was constitutionally vague.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.