Patricia Krenwinkel Granted Parole a Third Time as Newsom Review Looms
Patricia Krenwinkel, 78, a former follower of cult leader Charles Manson, was granted parole on Tuesday after nearly six decades in prison for her role in the Tate-LaBianca murders in Los Angeles. The Guardian
Tuesday's decision was the third time California's Board of Parole Hearings, the state panel that decides whether people serving life sentences can be released, has approved Krenwinkel for release. Gov. Gavin Newsom reversed her two prior parole grants and denied her freedom. Krenwinkel has been imprisoned longer than any other woman in California.
Krenwinkel was convicted in 1971 for her role in the two-night crime spree that killed actor Sharon Tate, who was eight months pregnant, and four friends, and grocery owner Leno LaBianca and his wife Rosemary. She was 21 years old at the time of the 1969 killings. She is serving a life sentence for her role in murdering seven people. Reuters
In May 2022, Krenwinkel was found suitable for parole, meaning officials judged she met the legal standard for release, by state prison officials. Los Angeles Times In October 2022, Newsom blocked that bid. He stated at the time that Krenwinkel "still poses an unreasonable danger to society if paroled at this time." Los Angeles Times
On May 30, 2025, Krenwinkel received a Grant decision at a Subsequent Suitability Hearing, a follow-up review hearing, in Los Angeles County under Penal Code 3041.2. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation lists her as inmate W08314. CDCR After that grant in late May 2025, her case awaited review by Newsom. Los Angeles Times
The Board published an October 2026 hearing calendar covering parole suitability hearings scheduled from October 1 through October 31, 2026, with data as of September 30, 2026. Tuesday's vote places Krenwinkel again in the post-grant review phase that has previously determined the outcome.
The broader context here is the tension in California's lifer parole system between two levels of review. A Board grant turns on current dangerousness, disciplinary record, programming, and release planning. A gubernatorial reversal turns on an independent assessment of the same record, with particular weight given to the gravity of the commitment offense and insight. Three grants followed by two reversals point to lasting disagreement between those two levels of review, not a procedural anomaly.
Looking at what this means for cases that carry extreme notoriety, the legal standard has not changed but its application stays highly individualized. Longevity behind bars does not compel release. Advanced age does not compel release. Repeated grants do not compel concurrence. Each cycle creates a fuller administrative record for the next panel and the next reviewing authority to weigh. The question now is whether the third grant presents a record of rehabilitation and risk mitigation sufficient to survive the review that defeated the first two.
