by Sagi Schwartzberg

On May 28, 2026, the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District concluded that a trial court’s reliance on an old Board of Parole finding in denying James Brinston’s request for compassionate release was an abuse of discretion.

James Brinston was convicted of several sex offenses related to an assault on a 20-year-old woman when he was 38. This was his second sex offense conviction, and in 1997, he was sentenced to 15 years to life imprisonment.

In 2022, Brinston appeared at a Board of Parole Hearing (“BPH”) that, while discussing several medical and health-related conditions Brinston was suffering from, found he had no understanding of his own criminal conduct and scored highly on certain risk assessments despite his physical limitations.

In March 2025, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (“CDCR”) director of health care services sent the trial court a letter stating that it determined Brinston was permanently medically incapacitated and unable to independently complete basic activities of daily living. The letter contained a physician’s report that set forth numerous severe medical conditions.

Additionally, the report provided that if Brinston’s sentence were recalled, he would be released to an appropriate facility to fulfill his needs. Before his release, CDCR staff would ensure that he had applied for Medi-Cal and, if needed, arrange for in-home hospice support services.

After the CDCR sent the trial court notice that Brinston met the criteria for compassionate release under Penal Code § 1172.2, Brinston filed a request for release. The People did not file anything in response and, at the hearing, did not dispute that Brinston was medically incapacitated. However, the People argued that there was clear and convincing evidence that he was an unreasonable risk to public safety.

The trial court, while not disputing that Brinston was medically incapacitated, and after finding that such medical conditions led to a presumption in favor of recalling Brinston’s sentence under section 1172.7, denied his request. The trial court concluded that the presumption in favor of recalling the sentence was overcome by clear and convincing evidence that Brinston still posed a significant risk to the community.

The trial court reached that conclusion by relying on the old BPH finding and the fact that the packet submitted by the CDCR did not address any current or future threat and was silent about Brinston’s state of mind, thought process, or sexual deviancy, and did not include a release plan. Brinston timely appealed.

“California law authorizes the compassionate release of prisoners through section 1172.2” (In re Brissette (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 147). California Penal Code § 1172.2 sets forth the procedures that must be followed, and if the trial court finds that an incarcerated person meets the criteria set forth in § 1172.2(b)(1) or (2), “[t]here shall be a presumption favoring recall and resentencing … which may only be overcome if a court finds the defendant is an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety …” (Cal. Pen. Code § 1172.2(b)).

An “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” is defined as “an unreasonable risk that the incarcerated person will commit a new ‘super strike,’ which is any violent felony listed under section 667, subdivision (e)(2)(C)(iv).”

A trial court’s determination that an individual poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See: People v. Lewis (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 401. Under the abuse of discretion standard, a trial court’s “decision will not be reversed merely because reasonable people might disagree. [A] trial court does not abuse its discretion unless its decision is so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it.” See: People v. Strother (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 563.

In this case, the Court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion.

First, in analyzing the criteria for the unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, the Court found the use of the term “unreasonable” was significant in light of In re Martinez (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 800 and the statute’s legislative history.

The Court then discussed Brinston’s 2022 BPH findings that the trial court relied on, which set his next parole hearing in three years’ time, believing it was sufficient time for Brinston to change, and that the trial court provided no explanation for why it reached a different conclusion.

While the trial court stated that Brinston’s medical condition was similar at the time of the BPH’s finding, the “vague description of Brinston’s limitations does not support this assertion, and the record in fact indicates the opposite,” the Court stated.

Notably, the Court found that the BPH finding failed to address entirely Brinston’s most significant medical condition, ankylosing spondylitis—a condition that caused Brinston to have diffusely debilitating stiffened joints and lose all strength in his lower extremities.

“The trial court’s lack of recognition of the breadth of information in the CDCR’s records may explain its remark that it appeared that the BPH had more information available to it than the trial court did. But even if the CDCR records were less extensive than the material available to the BPH or did not address his risk, that deficiency would not justify a finding Brinston to be a risk of danger to the public,” the Court stated.

“Given the infirmities in its factual findings, the trial court’s assessment of Brinston’s risk of danger to public safety cannot stand,” the Court concluded.

The Court held that notwithstanding his abhorrent criminal past, failure to demonstrate insight or empathy, and psychological tendency to reoffend, his severely restricted physical condition means he cannot present an unreasonable danger of committing a super strike offense against anyone.

Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion in finding Brinston posed an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety sufficient to overcome the presumption favoring his compassionate release.

Accordingly, the Court reversed the trial court’s order denying Brinston’s request for compassionate release. See: People v. Brinston, 120 Cal. App. 5th 972 (2026).  

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal case