Parole; MCL 791.233(1)(a); MI Admin Code, R 791.7715(2); Requirement that a prisoner with a history of predatory or assaultive sexual offenses undergo a psychological or psychiatric evaluation before a release decision is made; In re Parole of Haeger; The parole guidelines factors for scoring; R 791.7716(3)(a)

Holding that the Parole Board abused its discretion in granting appellant parole and that the circuit court did not err in reversing the Board’s decision, the court affirmed the circuit court. Appellant was charged with three counts of CSC I against his children, and pled nolo contendere to a count involving one of his daughters. He was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole. He was previously denied parole five times. The Board granted it in 2019. The prosecution appealed. “The circuit court examined the entire record including [appellant’s] PSIR, the files pertaining to his previous attempts to obtain parole, the file pertaining to [his] current request for parole, and the public hearing transcript. [It] identified and articulated in its written opinion numerous substantial and compelling reasons why it concluded that the Parole Board abused its discretion” in granting him parole. The court concluded the record supported the circuit court’s decision. It found that the circuit court did not substitute its judgment for that of the Board but rather “determined an error committed during the process of evaluating [appellant’s] level of risk which undermined the weight that the statistical analysis should be given. That, coupled with [appellant’s] gross failure to demonstrate willingness to accept responsibility for and insight into his past criminal behavior supported the circuit court’s conclusion that [he] failed to establish his readiness for release and that he will not become a menace to society or to the public safety. The circuit court also appropriately concluded that [he] had no viable plan for parole because he lacked a support system outside prison, lacked housing, lacked marketable skills, and had no specific plans for employment.” The court held that it did not err by finding he could not show “readiness for release because the record establishes that he lacked specific plans and skills to enable him to integrate back into society.” In addition, the circuit court did not err in “stating that significant concerns exist where sexual offender treatment will be left to the discretion of a parole officer.” Based on the record, “the circuit court appropriately concluded that reasonable assurance, after consideration of all of the facts and circumstances, did not exist that [appellant] will not become a menace to society or to the public safety as required under MCL 791.233(1)(a).”