C.A. 3rd;
C083356

The Third Appellate District affirmed a judgment. The court held that a regulation providing that an inmate's “serious misconduct” in prison or jail could show unsuitability for parole did not lack clarity.

State prison inmate James Menefield, who was serving an indeterminate life sentence, filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the validity of Cal. Code Regs. title 15, §2402(c)(6), which provides that an inmate's “serious misconduct in prison or jail” can tend to show his or her unsuitability for parole. Menefield argued that the regulation lacked clarity because it failed to define “serious misconduct.”