Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen, I stand before you in strong support of Bill HB193, because fairness and truth must guide every decision made in our courtrooms. Let me share with you the story of someone who had made mistakes, but who transformed himself through education, mentorship, and hard work. When he stood before a jury, those jurors had no idea whether parole was even possible. Out of fear and uncertainty, they handed down a sentence far harsher than anyone expected. Not because they were unfair — but because they were uninformed. This bill addresses that gap in knowledge. By ensuring jurors are fully informed about parole eligibility, we empower them to make decisions rooted in facts rather than assumptions. It gives them clarity instead of confusion. Fairness instead of fear. Justice instead of guesswork. HB193 restores transparency, honors the dignity of every person in the courtroom, and strengthens trust in our justice system. People can grow. People can change. And jurors deserve accurate information when deciding a person’s future. I urge you to support HB193 — for the families, for the jurors, and for every person whose life depends on a fair and honest process. Thank you. Leonie May

I, Willie X Brown, strongly support HB193 as it is a fair and justice Amendmemt for individuals to receive Judge compliance and notifications that parole had been abolished in Virginia. Please support this HB193 that all who are eligible receive Fairness and Justice. Thank you, Honorable Lawmakers.

Members of the General Assembly,, I respectfully submit this comment in strong support of HB193 and to recommend a complementary oversight mechanism to address instances of judicial noncompliance with Virginia sentencing law. HB193 is a necessary and measured response to a documented breakdown in compliance following Fishback v. Commonwealth (2000), which required juries to be instructed that parole had been abolished. When legally mandated procedures are not followed, the legitimacy of the resulting sentence is compromised. HB193 does not provide automatic release; it simply allows parole consideration in cases where the sentencing process itself was flawed. That approach reflects fundamental fairness and respect for the rule of law. In addition to supporting HB193, I urge the General Assembly to consider establishing an independent review and notification mechanism for cases in which judges sentence outside Virginia’s sentencing guidelines without articulated reasons, or where patterns of noncompliance are later identified. By way of example, in the case of Sterling Graham, an Alford plea was accepted for an 18-year sentence, after which the presiding judge imposed additional life sentences without documented justification for the departure from the guidelines. That judge was later removed from the bench. However, the individual directly affected by the sentencing irregularity was never notified or provided a mechanism for review. Regardless of the ultimate merits of any single case, this illustrates a serious systemic failure: when judicial misconduct or noncompliance is identified, there is no structured process to review impacted cases or notify affected individuals. Sentencing guidelines exist to promote consistency, proportionality, and public confidence. When those guidelines are disregarded without explanation—and when subsequent findings raise concerns about a judge’s conduct—justice requires more than silent correction at the institutional level. It requires transparency and a pathway for those harmed by such failures to be informed and, where appropriate, seek review. A limited oversight committee or review body would not undermine judicial independence. Instead, it would: Identify patterns of unexplained guideline departures Refer cases for appropriate review where systemic issues are found Ensure affected individuals are notified when judicial noncompliance may have impacted their sentence HB193 reflects the principle that legality in sentencing matters. A complementary oversight and notification mechanism would reinforce that principle and help ensure that when the system fails, those failures are acknowledged and addressed—not buried. For these reasons, I urge the General Assembly to support HB193 and to consider additional safeguards that promote accountability, transparency, and fairness in Virginia’s sentencing system. Respectfully submitted, Tonya Wright Wisdom’s Embrace 757-309-1733

I submit this testimony in support of HB193 to address a sentencing failure that continues to harm individuals sentenced during Virginia’s parole transition period. Mr. Howard’s case illustrates this failure clearly. Mr. Howard was sentenced in 2011 by a jury after parole had been abolished in Virginia. At trial, the jury explicitly asked the judge for guidance about parole eligibility. They wanted to understand how much time Mr. Howard would actually serve. They were not told. Under Virginia law at the time, juries were prohibited from being informed that parole no longer existed. As a result, the jury sentenced Mr. Howard without knowing that he would be required to serve at least 85 percent of his sentence. The outcome matters. Mr. Howard received a sentence that was double the recommended sentencing guidelines, with 85 percent mandatory time served. That is not a theoretical concern. That is decades of real time. Juries do not sentence in a vacuum. They sentence based on perceived severity, proportionality, and outcome. When jurors believe parole exists, they often impose longer sentences under the assumption that release mechanisms will later balance the punishment. In Mr. Howard’s case, the jury was denied the ability to weigh punishment accurately. Had the jury known that parole was unavailable - and that Mr. Howard would serve nearly the entire sentence imposed - it is reasonable to believe the sentence would have been different. Shorter. Closer to the guidelines. More proportionate. HB193 restores balance by allowing individuals like Mr. Howard to be considered for parole under the principles established in Fishback v. Commonwealth. This is not retroactive punishment relief. It is corrective justice. Fishback recognizes that juries should understand the real consequences of their decisions. When that understanding was legally blocked, the system - not the individual - failed. Allowing parole eligibility for those sentenced during this transition period does not undermine accountability. Mr. Howard remains incarcerated. He must still earn parole through demonstrated rehabilitation, conduct, and review. HB193 simply restores what the jury believed already existed. Justice is not only about the sentence imposed. It is about whether the process that produced it was fair. HB193 acknowledges that fairness was compromised. It gives the Commonwealth a lawful, measured way to correct it. For these reasons, I urge support for HB193.

I submit this testimony in support of HB193 to address a sentencing failure that continues to harm individuals sentenced during Virginia’s parole transition period. Mr. Howard’s case illustrates this failure clearly. Mr. Howard was sentenced in 2011 by a jury after parole had been abolished in Virginia. At trial, the jury explicitly asked the judge for guidance about parole eligibility. They wanted to understand how much time Mr. Howard would actually serve. They were not told. Under Virginia law at the time, juries were prohibited from being informed that parole no longer existed. As a result, the jury sentenced Mr. Howard without knowing that he would be required to serve at least 85 percent of his sentence. The outcome matters. Mr. Howard received a sentence that was double the recommended sentencing guidelines, with 85 percent mandatory time served. That is not a theoretical concern. That is decades of real time. Juries do not sentence in a vacuum. They sentence based on perceived severity, proportionality, and outcome. When jurors believe parole exists, they often impose longer sentences under the assumption that release mechanisms will later balance the punishment. In Mr. Howard’s case, the jury was denied the ability to weigh punishment accurately. Had the jury known that parole was unavailable - and that Mr. Howard would serve nearly the entire sentence imposed - it is reasonable to believe the sentence would have been different. Shorter. Closer to the guidelines. More proportionate. HB193 restores balance by allowing individuals like Mr. Howard to be considered for parole under the principles established in Fishback v. Commonwealth. This is not retroactive punishment relief. It is corrective justice. Fishback recognizes that juries should understand the real consequences of their decisions. When that understanding was legally blocked, the system - not the individual - failed. Allowing parole eligibility for those sentenced during this transition period does not undermine accountability. Mr. Howard remains incarcerated. He must still earn parole through demonstrated rehabilitation, conduct, and review. HB193 simply restores what the jury believed already existed. Justice is not only about the sentence imposed. It is about whether the process that produced it was fair. HB193 acknowledges that fairness was compromised. It gives the Commonwealth a lawful, measured way to correct it. For these reasons, I urge support for HB193.

My name is Marilyn Jackson, and I am writing in support of HB193. This bill is important because it provides an opportunity for parole consideration to individuals who were sentenced by a jury after the Supreme Court of Virginia’s decision in Fishback v. Commonwealth (2000). During that time, juries were instructed that parole had been abolished, which directly influenced sentencing decisions. As a result, many individuals received significantly longer sentences under the belief that there would be no possibility of early release. HB193 does not guarantee freedom for anyone. It simply allows eligible individuals to be reviewed by the Virginia Parole Board. That review process includes evaluating institutional behavior, rehabilitation efforts, program participation, and overall readiness to safely reenter society. Public safety remains the top priority. For individuals who have demonstrated growth, accountability, and rehabilitation, parole consideration offers hope and incentive to continue positive change. It also allows the Parole Board to make case-by-case decisions based on current risk assessments rather than decades-old assumptions. HB193 represents fairness, accountability, and smart public policy. It recognizes that people can change, that rehabilitation matters, and that careful review by the Parole Board strengthens—not weakens—public safety. I respectfully urge support of HB193.

I ask for you to vote YES for HB193 as it addresses fairness of the process for those who are held under Truth in Sentencing and juries were not informed of the details of the abolishment of parole. I support this bill and wish to see it reported, passed, and signed into Law.

I respectfully submit this testimony in support of HB193 and in recognition of the unfair sentencing exhibited in Mr. Howard’s case. Mr. Howard was sentenced in 2011, after Virginia had abolished parole. During deliberations, the jury asked the judge about parole eligibility because they sought to understand the true bearing of the sentence they were contemplating. They were not informed that parole had been abolished. At that time, the law barred juries from being told that the accused would be required to serve at least 85 percent of their sentence. Without that essential information, the jury imposed a sentence that was double the recommended guidelines, a decision that translated into years of mandatory prison time. The jurors were left to sentence under a faulty belief that some form of release mechanism remained in place. HB193 addresses this precise problem. It provides a narrow, lawful solution for individuals like Mr. Howard, who were punished during this transition phase without juries being fully informed. This bill does not ensure release, nor does it erase accountability. It simply allows for parole consideration, a structured, earned process based on rehabilitation and behavior. Justice demands transparency in sentencing. When juries were prevented from understanding the real effects of their decisions, fairness was compromised. HB193 offers a balanced approach to correcting that failure while maintaining public safety and accountability. For these reasons, I urge support for HB193. Thank you

I am writing to state that I support HB193. Please feel to contact me , 503 889-889-6606

Letter of Support for HB 193 (Virginia) From a Justice Advocate Dear Members of the Virginia General Assembly, I write in firm and unequivocal support of House Bill 193. This legislation is not about excusing crime or reopening questions of guilt. It is about correcting a well-documented and deeply consequential flaw in Virginia’s sentencing history—particularly in jury-sentenced cases where jurors were denied essential information about parole and the real-life consequences of the sentences they imposed. As a justice advocate, I have reviewed transcripts, case records, and sentencing outcomes that make one truth unmistakably clear: many juries imposed extreme sentences without understanding that parole was abolished or severely limited. In some cases, jurors explicitly asked whether parole existed. The response they received—often that parole was “none of their concern”—left them to deliberate in the dark. That matters profoundly. Jurors are ordinary citizens entrusted with extraordinary power. They are asked to weigh punishment, accountability, and fairness—yet they were deprived of information that would have fundamentally altered how they understood the meaning of a “life” or multi-decade sentence. In the specific matter we are advocating around, the trial transcript reflects that the jury directly asked about parole eligibility. Rather than receiving clarity, they were instructed that the question was irrelevant. The jury then proceeded to sentence an individual to what became, in practice, a life sentence without any realistic opportunity for release. This was not an isolated occurrence. It was a feature of an era. HB 193 recognizes what Virginia now acknowledges openly: the sentencing framework of the past produced outcomes that are inconsistent with today’s standards of proportionality, rehabilitation, and justice. The bill does not undermine jury verdicts. It does not erase accountability. Instead, it offers a narrow, carefully structured opportunity for review. Many individuals eligible under HB 193 have served decades, demonstrated rehabilitation, and pose little public safety risk. Denying review under these circumstances elevates procedure over justice. I urge you to support HB 193 and allow Virginia to continue correcting the lasting harm created by outdated sentencing practices. Respectfully, Felecia Blackston-Johnson Justice Advocate Midlothian, Virginia

Letter of Support for HB 193 (Virginia) From a Justice Advocate Dear Members of the Virginia General Assembly, I write in firm and unequivocal support of House Bill 193. This legislation is not about excusing crime or reopening questions of guilt. It is about correcting a well-documented and deeply consequential flaw in Virginia’s sentencing history—particularly in jury-sentenced cases where jurors were denied essential information about parole and the real-life consequences of the sentences they imposed. As a justice advocate, I have reviewed transcripts, case records, and sentencing outcomes that make one truth unmistakably clear: many juries imposed extreme sentences without understanding that parole was abolished or severely limited. In some cases, jurors explicitly asked whether parole existed. The response they received—often that parole was “none of their concern”—left them to deliberate in the dark. That matters profoundly. Jurors are ordinary citizens entrusted with extraordinary power. They are asked to weigh punishment, accountability, and fairness—yet they were deprived of information that would have fundamentally altered how they understood the meaning of a “life” or multi-decade sentence. In the specific matter we are advocating around, the trial transcript reflects that the jury directly asked about parole eligibility. Rather than receiving clarity, they were instructed that the question was irrelevant. The jury then proceeded to sentence an individual to what became, in practice, a life sentence without any realistic opportunity for release. This was not an isolated occurrence. It was a feature of an era. HB 193 recognizes what Virginia now acknowledges openly: the sentencing framework of the past produced outcomes that are inconsistent with today’s standards of proportionality, rehabilitation, and justice. The bill does not undermine jury verdicts. It does not erase accountability. Instead, it offers a narrow, carefully structured opportunity for review. Many individuals eligible under HB 193 have served decades, demonstrated rehabilitation, and pose little public safety risk. Denying review under these circumstances elevates procedure over justice. I urge you to support HB 193 and allow Virginia to continue correcting the lasting harm created by outdated sentencing practices. Respectfully, Felecia Blackston-Johnson Justice Advocate Midlothian, Virginia

I submit this testimony in support of HB193 to address a sentencing failure that continues to harm individuals sentenced during Virginia’s parole transition period. Mr. Howard’s case illustrates this failure clearly. Mr. Howard was sentenced in 2011 by a jury after parole had been abolished in Virginia. At trial, the jury explicitly asked the judge for guidance about parole eligibility. They wanted to understand how much time Mr. Howard would actually serve. They were not told. Under Virginia law at the time, juries were prohibited from being informed that parole no longer existed. As a result, the jury sentenced Mr. Howard without knowing that he would be required to serve at least 85 percent of his sentence. The outcome matters. Mr. Howard received a sentence that was double the recommended sentencing guidelines, with 85 percent mandatory time served. That is not a theoretical concern. That is decades of real time. Juries do not sentence in a vacuum. They sentence based on perceived severity, proportionality, and outcome. When jurors believe parole exists, they often impose longer sentences under the assumption that release mechanisms will later balance the punishment. In Mr. Howard’s case, the jury was denied the ability to weigh punishment accurately. Had the jury known that parole was unavailable - and that Mr. Howard would serve nearly the entire sentence imposed - it is reasonable to believe the sentence would have been different. Shorter. Closer to the guidelines. More proportionate. HB193 restores balance by allowing individuals like Mr. Howard to be considered for parole under the principles established in Fishback v. Commonwealth. This is not retroactive punishment relief. It is corrective justice. Fishback recognizes that juries should understand the real consequences of their decisions. When that understanding was legally blocked, the system - not the individual - failed. Allowing parole eligibility for those sentenced during this transition period does not undermine accountability. Mr. Howard remains incarcerated. He must still earn parole through demonstrated rehabilitation, conduct, and review. HB193 simply restores what the jury believed already existed. Justice is not only about the sentence imposed. It is about whether the process that produced it was fair. HB193 acknowledges that fairness was compromised. It gives the Commonwealth a lawful, measured way to correct it. For these reasons, I urge support for HB193.

Statement in Support of HB 193 I am here today in strong support of HB 193 because this bill corrects a quiet but serious injustice that has affected thousands of Virginians for more than two decades. In 2000, the Supreme Court of Virginia made it clear in Fishback v. Commonwealth that juries must be told that parole had been abolished for felony offenses committed after January 1, 1995. That information matters. It goes directly to how a jury understands the real-life consequences of the sentence they impose. Yet for years after that ruling, many individuals were sentenced by juries that were never given this instruction. HB 193 does not undo convictions. It does not guarantee release. What it does is far more measured and responsible: it allows a narrow group of people—those who can prove that their jury was not properly instructed—to be considered for parole after decades of incarceration. This bill applies only to people who have already served long sentences, who remain incarcerated as of July 1, 2026, and who are not convicted of Class 1 felonies or offenses involving minor victims. These exclusions matter. They reflect careful attention to public safety and the seriousness of harm caused by certain crimes. At its core, HB 193 is about fairness and accuracy in sentencing. A jury that believes parole exists may impose a harsher sentence under the assumption that someone could be released early. When parole had already been abolished, that assumption was false. HB 193 simply acknowledges that reality and provides a lawful, structured review process through the Parole Board. The bill also respects public safety. Every eligible individual must still go through a full parole review. The Parole Board retains complete discretion to deny release if someone poses a risk. Nothing in this bill weakens that safeguard. What HB 193 does strengthen is confidence in our justice system. It tells the public that Virginia is willing to confront past procedural failures, even when it is uncomfortable, and that we believe accountability includes the system itself. Many of the people affected by this bill have spent decades incarcerated. They have aged, changed, taken responsibility, completed programs, and built records of stability. Allowing them to be heard—just once—through a parole interview is not leniency. It is justice done carefully and thoughtfully. I urge you to support HB 193, not as an act of sympathy, but as an act of integrity. A system that values truth, fairness, and public safety must be willing to correct its own errors. HB 193 does exactly that. Thank you for your time and consideration. Marilyn Jackson Advocate

Please support HB 193. Expanding parole eligibility only makes sense! The juries involved were not informed that Virginia did not have parole. These many deserve the opportunity (not even a guarantee) to demonstrate that they are rehabilitated and deserve a second chance! Please move this through in the interest of fairness and justice! Thank you!

James Jones is my name. And I support HB193 strongly and request that this HB193 be amended and pass for complete compliance in fairness and justice. Thank you. With sincere regards, James Jones

My name is James Ford. I strongly support HB193, and humbly request that the Lawmakers constitutionally do the same with this Amendment. Thank you. With respect, James Ford

Dear Law Makers, Please pass this amendment for constitutional compliance of HB193. Thank you with a bless and safe week. Sincerely, Larry G. Johnson

Dear LEGISLATORS! Please endorse, support, and pass HB193. Thank you for your LEGISLATIVE Courage. Have a safe and blessed day. Sincerely, Byron Arrington

I, Kevin Jones, hereby strongly support HB193. Please pass this amendment in all do fairness constitutionally. Thank you for your just support and passage of HB193. Sincerely, Mr.K Jones

I support house bill 193 for fair sentencing

On behalf of the Virginia Justice Alliance, I support HB193 because people were sentenced by juries who were never told parole had been abolished. That lack of transparency changed outcomes and continues to keep people incarcerated far beyond what many jurors intended. HB193 does not guarantee release. It allows a fair and limited review for those who meet clear criteria after decades served. Virginia should not defend sentences rooted in misinformation. Justice requires the courage to correct past harm.

I am writing in support of HB193. I feel this particular legislation would provide relief for inmates who were disadvantaged by the unfair parole stipulation.

I SUPPORT HB193 FOR FAIR SENTENCING. THANK YOU.

I, Elizabeth Charity, strongly support HB193, the Fishback vs. Commonwealth of Virginia amendment for court's to come into compliance with the law. Thank you for your just endorsement. Sincerely, Elizabeth Charity

I, Antonie Battle, strongly support HB193! Can you please support and endorse this Bill for Amendment and compliance for justice and fairness. Thank you for supporting this HB193.

I, Keshia Bernette, of Rich Mindz Community org. support HB193 because it is already constitutionally law and should be in compliance to that just Fishback Law. Thank you for supporting this HB193. Sincerely submitted, Keisha Barnette

I support HB193 because it addresses a gap in fairness by allowing parole consideration for individuals whose juries were not properly informed about the abolition of parole at the time of sentencing. This bill does not guarantee release, but it ensures that sentencing outcomes are reviewed in a way that reflects transparency, due process, and justice.

Members of the General Assembly, I respectfully submit this comment in strong support of HB193 and to recommend a complementary oversight mechanism to address instances of judicial noncompliance with Virginia sentencing law. HB193 is a necessary and measured response to a documented breakdown in compliance following Fishback v. Commonwealth (2000), which required juries to be instructed that parole had been abolished. When legally mandated procedures are not followed, the legitimacy of the resulting sentence is compromised. HB193 does not provide automatic release; it simply allows parole consideration in cases where the sentencing process itself was flawed. That approach reflects fundamental fairness and respect for the rule of law. In addition to supporting HB193, I urge the General Assembly to consider establishing an independent review and notification mechanism for cases in which judges sentence outside Virginia’s sentencing guidelines without articulated reasons, or where patterns of noncompliance are later identified. By way of example, in the case of Sterling Graham, an Alford plea was accepted for an 18-year sentence, after which the presiding judge imposed additional life sentences without documented justification for the departure from the guidelines. That judge was later removed from the bench. However, the individual directly affected by the sentencing irregularity was never notified or provided a mechanism for review. Regardless of the ultimate merits of any single case, this illustrates a serious systemic failure: when judicial misconduct or noncompliance is identified, there is no structured process to review impacted cases or notify affected individuals. Sentencing guidelines exist to promote consistency, proportionality, and public confidence. When those guidelines are disregarded without explanation—and when subsequent findings raise concerns about a judge’s conduct—justice requires more than silent correction at the institutional level. It requires transparency and a pathway for those harmed by such failures to be informed and, where appropriate, seek review. A limited oversight committee or review body would not undermine judicial independence. Instead, it would: * Identify patterns of unexplained guideline departures * Refer cases for appropriate review where systemic issues are found * Ensure affected individuals are notified when judicial noncompliance may have impacted their sentence HB193 reflects the principle that legality in sentencing matters. A complementary oversight and notification mechanism would reinforce that principle and help ensure that when the system fails, those failures are acknowledged and addressed—not buried. For these reasons, I urge the General Assembly to support HB193 and to consider additional safeguards that promote accountability, transparency, and fairness in Virginia’s sentencing system. Respectfully submitted, Tonya Wright Wisdom’s Embrace 757-309-1733

I support this bill,H.B. 193. Please vote yes to this important and necessary bill, parole eligibility.

We support this extension of Fishback. It is only fair. Several advocacy clients we know who have done everything possible to rehabilitate themselves would greatly benefit by this law being passed. Juries after 2000 still did not know that parole did not exist. People who were 20 or younger deserve a second chance. This bill doesn't even guarantee that; but it offers them a CHANCE, a path forward. We support HB193.

Hello, I'm a Virginian who was incarcerated for a nonviolent felony offense from 1998 to 2000. I'm now in a professional position serving my local community. At the time of my offense, the abolition of parole was relatively new. I was sentenced under the Youthful Offender Act, which placed me as one of only 50 inmates in Virginia who could still be sentenced with the possibility of parole. I'm living proof that someone can turn their life around after a felony conviction. But this bill is a matter of fairness. HB193 will correct the injustice done not just to the defendants but also to the members of the jury, who were uninformed that parole was no longer a possibility when they made their decisions. Had they known, they might have recommended a different sentence. Given the 26 years that has elapsed, it's time for the Parole Board to have the opportunity to determine if it would be appropriate for these individuals to be considered for early release.

Something’s should have been looked into before and changed way before now.

Supporting HB 193 is essential to uphold justice and ensure that individuals affected by the Fishback parole eligibility law receive fair treatment. Extending this legislation addresses the issues stemming from judicial noncompliance, allowing those who qualify for parole to access the opportunities they deserve. HB 193 reinforces the importance of accountability in the judicial process, ultimately benefiting both individuals and society as a whole.

Please pass the HB193. I support it.

I support the HB193 bill. Please pass the bill.

Prisoners Rights Clinic is in full support of moving this bill forward .

Please support this important Bill HB#193 That would right a wrong and bring justice and a chance for many incarcerated people

Please pass the bill for HP193 Gerald A Anderson Jr

Justice cannot be served when a jury’s decision is based on a lack of information or a fundamental lie. This bill corrects a historical unfairness by granting parole eligibility to those whose juries were never told that parole had been abolished in Virginia. S4JR advocates for HB193 to ensure the integrity of our legal system and to provide a fair hearing for those currently serving sentences that were built on a foundation of misinformation.

I support the HB193 bill

Please pass HB 193. I support this bill

Please pass the HB193 bill . Idella King Anderson

I support the HB193 bill. Please pass it.

I support extending the Fishback parole eligibility law as outlined in this bill.

I support Bill HB 193 parole eligibility. It is a fair sentencing bill

I support Bill HB 193 parole eligibility. It is a fair sentencing bill

I support Bill HB 193 parole eligibility. It is a fair sentencing bill

I support both of the selected Bills HB193 HB194

I support Bill HB 193 parole eligibility. It is a fair sentencing bill

I support Bill HB 193 parole eligibility .it is a fair sentencing bill

I support both of the selected Bills

I support Bill HB 193 parole eligibility.it is a fair sentencing bill

I, Lucretia Brown, support and sponsor HB193. By passing this Bill is in upholding the constitutionality of justice and fairness for those that are under the Fishback vs. Commonwealth of Virginia law. Please pass this Bill. Thank you. HB193 Status: In Committee Parole; exception to limitation on the application of parole statutes. Patrons All PatronsMore info Introduced by: Delores L. McQuinn (Chief Patron) Summary As Introduced Parole; exception to limitation on the application of parole statutes. Provides that a person is eligible to be considered for parole if such person (i) was sentenced by a jury after the date of the Supreme Court of Virginia decision in Fishback v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 104 (2000), in which the Supreme Court held that a jury should be instructed on the fact that parole has been abolished, for a felony committed on or after the abolition of parole going into effect on January 1, 1995; (ii) can prove by the preponderance of the evidence that the jury in his case was not instructed on the fact that parole has been abolished; and (iii) remained incarcerated for the offense on July 1, 2026, and the offense was not one of the following: (a) a Class 1 felony; (b) if the victim was a minor, rape, forcible sodomy, object sexual penetration, or aggravated sexual battery or an attempt to commit any such act; or (c) carnal knowledge. The bill also requires the Parole Board to establish procedures for consideration of parole of persons entitled to it and also provides that any person who is eligible for parole as of July 1, 2026, shall be scheduled for a parole interview no later than July 1, 2027, allowing for extension of time for reasonable cause.

I, Marty Haerd, support and ask that HB193 be upheld and passed for all currently incarcerated Fishback applicants eligible for parole hearing. In the name of justice and fairness, thank you.

I, Karim Muhammad, support HB193 and Patroned by Delores L. McQuinn to uphold the constitutional ruling in Fishback vs. Commonwealth of Virginia. In the name of justice and fairness please pass this Bill. Thank you. HB193 Status: In Committee Parole; exception to limitation on the application of parole statutes. Patrons All PatronsMore info Introduced by: Delores L. McQuinn (Chief Patron) Summary As Introduced Parole; exception to limitation on the application of parole statutes. Provides that a person is eligible to be considered for parole if such person (i) was sentenced by a jury after the date of the Supreme Court of Virginia decision in Fishback v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 104 (2000), in which the Supreme Court held that a jury should be instructed on the fact that parole has been abolished, for a felony committed on or after the abolition of parole going into effect on January 1, 1995; (ii) can prove by the preponderance of the evidence that the jury in his case was not instructed on the fact that parole has been abolished; and (iii) remained incarcerated for the offense on July 1, 2026, and the offense was not one of the following: (a) a Class 1 felony; (b) if the victim was a minor, rape, forcible sodomy, object sexual penetration, or aggravated sexual battery or an attempt to commit any such act; or (c) carnal knowledge. The bill also requires the Parole Board to establish procedures for consideration of parole of persons entitled to it and also provides that any person who is eligible for parole as of July 1, 2026, shall be scheduled for a parole interview no later than July 1, 2027, allowing for extension of time for reasonable cause.

I, Alexander Campbell, firmly support HB193! Thank you for passing this just and fair Bill of the constitutional law passed for Fishback v Commonwealth of Virginia. Thank you. With Best Regards, HB193 Status: In Committee Parole; exception to limitation on the application of parole statutes. Patrons All PatronsMore info Introduced by: Delores L. McQuinn (Chief Patron) Summary As Introduced Parole; exception to limitation on the application of parole statutes. Provides that a person is eligible to be considered for parole if such person (i) was sentenced by a jury after the date of the Supreme Court of Virginia decision in Fishback v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 104 (2000), in which the Supreme Court held that a jury should be instructed on the fact that parole has been abolished, for a felony committed on or after the abolition of parole going into effect on January 1, 1995; (ii) can prove by the preponderance of the evidence that the jury in his case was not instructed on the fact that parole has been abolished; and (iii) remained incarcerated for the offense on July 1, 2026, and the offense was not one of the following: (a) a Class 1 felony; (b) if the victim was a minor, rape, forcible sodomy, object sexual penetration, or aggravated sexual battery or an attempt to commit any such act; or (c) carnal knowledge. The bill also requires the Parole Board to establish procedures for consideration of parole of persons entitled to it and also provides that any person who is eligible for parole as of July 1, 2026, shall be scheduled for a parole interview no later than July 1, 2027, allowing for extension of time for reasonable cause.

I, Artina Taylor, seriously support HB193! I am supporter of Resource Information Help for Disadvantage and Disenfranchised (RIHD). Thank you for passing this Bill. Status: In Committee Parole; exception to limitation on the application of parole statutes. Patrons All PatronsMore info Introduced by: Delores L. McQuinn (Chief Patron) Summary As Introduced Parole; exception to limitation on the application of parole statutes. Provides that a person is eligible to be considered for parole if such person (i) was sentenced by a jury after the date of the Supreme Court of Virginia decision in Fishback v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 104 (2000), in which the Supreme Court held that a jury should be instructed on the fact that parole has been abolished, for a felony committed on or after the abolition of parole going into effect on January 1, 1995; (ii) can prove by the preponderance of the evidence that the jury in his case was not instructed on the fact that parole has been abolished; and (iii) remained incarcerated for the offense on July 1, 2026, and the offense was not one of the following: (a) a Class 1 felony; (b) if the victim was a minor, rape, forcible sodomy, object sexual penetration, or aggravated sexual battery or an attempt to commit any such act; or (c) carnal knowledge. The bill also requires the Parole Board to establish procedures for consideration of parole of persons entitled to it and also provides that any person who is eligible for parole as of July 1, 2026, shall be scheduled for a parole interview no later than July 1, 2027, allowing for extension of time for reasonable cause.

I

I, Willie X Brown, fervently support HB 193 in upholding justice, fairness, and law compliance that those who are Fishback will receive the benefit of the constitution enacted law. "An injustice anywhere is an injustice Everywhere." --Dr.Martin King

HB 193 (Extending parole eligible/ post fishback/ sentence after June 9, 2000. In these turbulent times, it is crucial that you as Virginia lawmakers make things right. By doing so you will be correcting many wrongs to individuals who have made a mistake and find themselves behind bars which could be anyone of us. I am writing to ask you to Vote Yes for HB 193. Lay people are sometimes not aware of changes, but our judges are informed about any changes in criminal justice and they already know what they have to do, be transparent when giving instructions to the jury about the life of an accused individual. Everyone that is committed to prison is not bad people but just need to be reminded they are human beings and they have a responsibility to society. Once they have shown for years they have come back into their real self and demonstrate fundamental change by having the same routine day in and day out. This request is in accordance with the Fishback v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 104 (2000) in which the Supreme Court held that a jury should be instructed on the fact that parole has been abolished for a felony committed after January 1995, and can prove the preponderance of the evidence that a jury was not instructed on the fact that parole has been abolished, there are individuals that remain behind bars for the same offense on July 2025. Their annual evaluation says a lot about how an individual has changed or not. Thank you. Lorrene Crowell

I support HB193 it's a fair sentencing bill and it's a remedy for injustice that retores public trust.

Discovery discrepancies are rampant throughout several cases that I know of. Please pass this bill to allow for more transparency. Both sides should be able to see and request all evidence both before and after trial so that they can accurately represent their case!

I Jacqueline Graham Support This Bill HB193

HB193 is your opportunity to restore faith in our courts and to demonstrate that Virginia’s leaders will not turn away from those who have suffered under an uneven system. By supporting this legislation, you are standing up for families, for the integrity of our legal process, and for the core values that define our Commonwealth. A VOTE 'YES for HB193 is a vote for justice, compassion, and the promise that no Virginian will be forgotten or left behind. I urge you to lead with courage and empathy, Thank you.

HB193 is necessary for Incarcerated Veterans Inmates with Military PTSD. My son was unjustly sentenced in 2022, and proven InChoate by a Virginia Post Sentencing Attorney. My loved one remains in a Virginia Prison. Please pass this bill for my son and others.

I support Bill HB 193 Parole eligibility. It is a fair sentencing bill

I am writing in support of HB193 | McQuinn | Parole; exception to limitation on the application of parole statutes. In order for sentencing to be fair and promote equity, all laws, specifically in reference to parole, must be known to jurors as sentences may have been decided upon under the assumption that parole was a later option. The lack of information has dissolved offenders ability to prove rehabilitation and successful re-entry to their communities, which in most cases, is the ultimate goal. I ask that this bill be passed, to restore this opportunity to those who have put forth the efforts needed to be productive citizens upon release. Thank you.

It is time to enact ong overdue reform in our prisons, jails, and courts.

Hello, my name is Ursula Ward. Im writing in support of HB 193. It would mean a great deal to my family and our loved one if this bill were to pass. Our loved on has been incarcerated for many years and this bill will assist / help our loved one to be able to to re-enter into society and be an asset to our future. Thank you in advance, Ursula Ward

Support Bill HB 193 parole eligibility. It is a fair sentencing bill

I support Bill HB 193 parole eligibility. It is a fair sentencing bill

I support Bill HB 193 parole eligibility. It is a fair sentencing bill

I support Bill HB 193 parole eligibility. It is a fair sentencing bill

I support Bill HB 193 Parole eligibility. It is a fair sentencing bill

I support Bill HB 193 parole eligibility.It is a fair sentencing bill

I support Bill HB193 Parole eligibility. It is a fair sentencing

I support Bill HB 193 Parole eligibility it is a fair sentencing bill

I support Bill HB193 Parole eligibility .It's is a fair sentencing bill

I support Bill H B193 Parole eligibility .It's a fair sentencing bill .

I support billHB193 parole eligibility it's a fair sentencing bill

HB193 will ensure fairness in the Virginia sentencing process and address judicial noncompliances of the law to which persons who received a jury trial per Fishback vs Commonwealth (269 Va 104, June 9, 2000) were NOT sentenced until after the 2020 SB793 law deadline (June 9, 2000) due to judicial noncompliance. Thank you.

My family and I support HB 193 because it will remedy sentencing error of the past that remain uncorrected and Thank You

HB193 will ensure fairness in the Virginia sentencing process and address judicial noncompliances of the law to which persons who received a jury trial per Fishback vs Commonwealth (269 Va 104, June 9, 2000) were NOT sentenced until after June 9, 2000. I, McKenna Holloman, support HB193, and I hope you vote “yes” when HB193 comes before your office.

Hello Senator McQuin,, My name is Ursula Ward. Im writing to inform you that I support HB 193. This bill affects my loved one and it would mean a great deal to our family for the possible passage of this bill. Thank you in advance for your consideration, Ursula Ward

As a concerned citizen I support HB193 for it will ensure fairness in the Virginia sentencing process and address judicial noncompliances of the law to which persons who received a jury trial per Fishback vs Commonwealth (269 Va 104, June 9, 2000) were not sentenced until after June 9, 2000.