October 11, 2026 - Sonora, California – Tuolumne County District Attorney Cassandra Jenecke has announced three successful outcomes from recent parole hearings, each of which resulted in five-year denials of parole for violent life-term offenders - Justin Hatler, Joshua Mejia, and Michael Davies.

Justin Hatler

On July 15, 2026, DA Jenecke appeared via video conference at the first subsequent parole suitability hearing for Justin Hatler, age 50, who was convicted by plea of aggravated sexual abuse of a child and sexual battery by restraint in 2015. At the time of his conviction, Hatler was 34 years old. He was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison and was admitted to state prison December 21, 2015. Since his initial parole hearing in July 2023 where he received a 3-year denial of parole, Hatler received a serious rules violation for possession of contraband. In his latest Comprehensive Risk Assessment (CRA), a clinician elevated Hatler’s risk for violence from a lower moderate risk to a higher moderate risk. Hatler continued to demonstrate a lack of insight into his causative factors, minimized his conduct during the commitment offense and his serious rules violation, and expressed sexual fantasies about an underage female he observed on television the week prior to the hearing. The Commissioners considered DA Jenecke’s strenuous argument against Hatler’s release, which was accompanied by an incredibly strong and moving impact statement by one of our survivors of crime, and a letter in opposition to release from Sheriff David Vasquez. After careful consideration of all that information, the Board issued Hatler a five-year denial of parole.

It is important to note that at the time of Hatler’s initial parole suitability hearing on July 2, 2023, he had served only 7 years, 6 months, and 16 days of his 15 years to life sentence. At the time of this first subsequent parole suitability hearing, Hatler had served only 10 years, 6 months, and 24 days of his sentence in state prison. Under CDCR regulations promulgated by the power awarded to California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) by Proposition 57 in 2016, CDCR now incentivizes life-term inmates in the same way they do non-life-term inmates with in-prison custody-credit-earning opportunities. When Hatler pled guilty in 2015, life-term inmates did not receive any custody credit and were required to serve the entirety of their minimum imprisonment term before being eligible for parole consideration. The question of whether Proposition 57 actually authorized CDCR to award and apply earned credits to advance indeterminately sentenced persons’ minimal eligible parole dates is pending appeal before the California Supreme Court in Criminal Justice Legal Foundation vs. CDCR, et. al., Case No. S292887.

Joshua Mejia

On September 4, 2026, Retired Assistant District Attorney Eric Hovatter appeared via video conference at the initial parole suitability for Joshua Mejia, age 44, who was convicted by jury verdict of the first-degree murder of Robert Johannes, 49, of Crystal Lake in 2005. At the time of his conviction, Mejia was 23 years old. Mejia’s defense at trial was that while he had beaten Johannes and intended to rob him, the actual murder was committed by Joshua Perry. Mejia also claimed to investigators his beating of Johannes was prompted by him finding child pornography in Johannes’ possession. Several years ago, changes in the law enabled Mejia to petition the court for a reduction of his charges and again he relied on his original statements to investigators and to the jury. Mejia, acting as his own attorney, filed numerous pleadings and was even successful in obtaining a hearing where he was allowed to call witnesses to bolster his theory that Perry was the actual murderer. Despite the changes in the law and Mejia’s efforts, ADA Hovatter successfully contested Mejia’s efforts to have his sentence reduced. In 2025, Mejia became eligible for a parole hearing but elected to postpone for a year so he could better prepare for an eventual hearing. In preparation for his initial parole suitability hearing, Mejia participated in the development of a clinical CRA. During his interview, conducted in March 2026, Mejia again admitted to beating Johnannes but said Perry was the killer.

Numerous relatives of Mr. Johannes were present at the hearing including his two daughters, his ex-wife and many cousins, nieces and their spouses who were supported by Tuolumne County District Attorney Victim Witness Advocate Dixie Sky. During the hearing, Mejia finally admitted he was the actual and only killer, that Perry was not present during his life crime, and that he had completely fabricated the story of finding any child pornography in Johannes’ possession. Upon questioning by the Commissioners. Mejia admitted all his previous statements and court pleadings were based on the lies he had fabricated from the beginning of the case. He also admitted to lying to the psychologist at his recent CRA interview. At the conclusion of the hearing, ADA Hovatter asked the Parole Board to deny Mejia parole. After 15 minutes of deliberation, the Commissioners found Mejia still represented a danger to the public based on his perpetuation of serious lies, coupled with the violent nature of the murder, and was unsuitable for parole. The Board issued a denial of parole for 5 years.

It is important to note that parole denial periods can be for a length of 3, 5, 7, 10, or 15 years. The Commissioners must make particularized findings to justify the length of parole denial. However, offenders may petition to advance their parole hearings if there is a change in the inmate’s suitability for parole. These petitions are reviewed by BPH Deputy Commissioners and victims or their next of kin are given an opportunity to review and comment. District Attorneys are not notified of inmate requests for advancement nor are we given an opportunity to object or respond.

Michael Davies

On September 29, 2026, DA Jenecke appeared via video conference at the initial parole suitability hearing of Michael Davies, age 50, who was convicted by jury verdict of the first-degree murder of Michael Gilligan in 2001. His co-offenders, Robert Wright and Edward Mendez, were convicted of voluntary manslaughter.

Gilligan was found in his home severely beaten, stabbed in the eye, and with his throat slashed. Davies denied involvement in the murder. During his clinical interview for his CRA, Davies admitted that he had planned to kill Gilligan for about a month prior to the murder because he believed Gilligan has molested a child. There was never any evidence substantiating that claim. He further admitted that he committed significant violence against Gilligan including breaking bones in his body and trying to cut his head off. The clinician found that Davies represented a higher moderate risk of violence.

At his hearing, Davies admitted that he had last used methamphetamine and heroin in April 2026 and that he had been heavily using prior to committing the murder. DA Jenecke argued that Davies’ self-help and rehabilitative programming was minimal and insufficient to address his criminality. This was demonstrated by his continued use of illicit substances while incarcerated and multiple serious rules violations for fighting and controlled substance use.

After 11 minutes of deliberations, the Commissioners found Davies unsuitable for parole and issued a denial term of 5 years.

It’s important to note that Davies was assessed under both youthful offender and elder parole factors. Under youthful offender parole consideration, an offender must have been under the age of 26 at the time they committed their offense and as a result, the Board is required to give great weight to factors specific to youth offenders. This is based on the belief that adolescent brains are not yet fully mature until a person reaches their mid-to-late 20s, which is now codified into law through the youthful offender parole program. For elder parole consideration, an offender must be over the age of 50 and have served at least 20 years of their sentence to be considered. This law initially developed out of the Coleman/Plata vs. Newsom federal litigation, but was later codified and modified to lower the applicable age and length of sentence. The Board is required to give special consideration to the incarcerated person’s advanced age, long-term confinement, and diminished physical condition. To learn more about these programs, please see the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations’ Board of Parole Hearings parole suitability website.

About these three 5-year denials, DA Jenecke said, “Five-year denials are rare. The reality is that our work doesn’t stop at a conviction. Attendance at parole hearings is an essential function of a prosecutor’s office, particularly in this time of hearing advancement, early parole hearing consideration, and frequent changes in custody credit regulations. Our success is only made possible through the dedication of the dedication of our prosecutors who immerse themselves in these decades-old cases and hundreds of pages incarceration records, the perseverance of our victim advocates and district attorney investigators in finding and supporting our survivors and their next of kin through the parole hearing process, and the strength of our victims and their next of kin to keep advocating with us.”

Statewide statistics related to parole hearings may be found in BPH’s Annual Report of Significant Events.

Source: Tuolumne County District Attorney