The Amador County District Attorney's Office is protesting a state parole board panel's decision last month to grant a parole date to a former Pioneer resident serving a life sentence for the 1980 murder of her 5-year-old stepdaughter.

The independent decision by the two-member panel is just the first step in a knotty process increasingly bogged down in an ever-growing backlog of cases, though state corrections officials say that hasn't informed panel members' decisions one way or the other.

The Dec. 19 decision to grant a parole date to Gina Sargent, 49, who is currently incarcerated at the Central California Women's Facility in Chowchilla, was based on a number of factors, according to the parole hearing transcript. Presiding Commissioner Jack Garner, part of the 12-member California Board of Parole, cited Sargent's "realistic parole plans" and involvement with a number of self-help programs, as well as educational and vocational programs. He also said Sargent showed signs of remorse and understood the nature and magnitude of her offense.

The decision was made despite objections from Chief Assistant District Attorney Melinda Aiello and the victim's biological mother, Mildred Suzanne Inmon, who said she's been unable to forgive Sargent for killing her daughter, Elana.

"I've tried to forgive you, but I can't - I just can't find it," she said at the hearing.

During the hearing, Sargent admitted to an escalating pattern of abuse in the five to seven months that Elana was in her care. Sargent and Elana's father, Henry, had gained custody of the 5-year-old through the family court system, with Inmon holding visitation rights at the time. Sargent also had a 4-year-old daughter from a previous marriage living with her at the time.

While Sargent had no prior criminal history, she admitted being an abuser of drugs and alcohol since the age of 20, being under the influence nearly every day, something she said she didn't use as an excuse for the daily physical abuse.

"I'm not (attributing) my actions to the alcohol and the drugs because those weren't - that was my choice to do that. But it was an ongoing abusive situation," she told the panel. "There was no reason for it; nothing had to happen out of the ordinary. I was just a very angry, immature, messed up person and when I reacted, I took it out on Elana."

On the night of the fateful attack, Nov. 19, 1980, Sargent said she was caring for Elana, her daughter Stephanie and three children she agreed to babysit, a 4-year-old girl, an 18-month-old boy and a 6-month-old girl.

In response to a question from Aiello, Sargent recounted the events:

"(Elana) was at the top of the stairs helping me with the baby and I'd asked her to go do something. I don't even remember what it was. Get the bottle or something. And she didn't move fast enough for me that night and I swung out and slapped her and pushed her down the stairs."

According to Sargent, it would be three hours until she went to a neighbor's home to call for help. At Sutter Amador Hospital, medical staff noticed numerous bruises and abrasions, as well as a large bruise on her forehead. Elana was put in pediatric intensive care. Two days later, she died.

Sargent initially denied any guilt. During the eventual trial, the forensic pathologist who conducted Elana's autopsy revealed that 97 scars were found on the girl's body, suggesting prior physical abuse. In answer to a question from Aiello, Sargent said the physical abuse practically became a daily habit.

A number of experts also testified that the massive head trauma that led to Elana's death couldn't have been caused by a push down the stairs.

Sargent was ultimately found guilty of second degree murder, corporal injury to a child and child endangerment, and sentenced to 17 years to life in state prison. Her last parole hearing was February 2006, when the panel issued a one-year denial.

Though Sargent has since admitted responsibility for Elana's death, doubts over how it occurred factored into the district attorney's opposition.

"Based upon the severity and callousness of the crime, the vulnerability of the victim, and the failure of Ms. Sargent to come clean for what she really did to cause Elana's death, we are seeking a reversal of this decision," said District Attorney Todd Riebe in a statement earlier this month.

Asked if he thought the pressures of an overcrowded state prison system had anything to do with the panel's decision, Riebe told the Ledger Dispatch he was doubtful.

"There is that overall backdrop," he said, "but I just chalk this up to an unfortunate decision, quite frankly."

Former county Sheriff Mike Prizmich is a current parole board commissioner who remembers the case vividly. Twenty-eight years ago, he was the lieutenant in the sheriff's office who investigated the crime and helped send Sargent to prison, he said. Since her conviction, he has sent letters opposing her parole for years.

Prizmich said parole board commissioners consider a number of factors when deciding whether to grant a parole date.

"We look into their work in prison in terms of self-help programs, education, training, as well as the disciplinary history," he said. "We look into the psychological status, which is provided to us by a doctor. We review the crime they were committed for, as well as the social network. We also certainly review the previous criminal history, and take testimony from the victim's next of kin and the district attorney."

In Sargent's case, she had positive marks in every area except the last. Since 1987, when she was moved from protective custody to general population, she's involved herself with Alcoholics Anonymous and nearly a dozen other programs. Sargent received her general equivalency diploma in 2006 and has taken vocational classes toward becoming a dental assistant. She also has a near-spotless disciplinary record and received good marks in psychological evaluations. Sargent has also lined up a possible transitional housing opportunity in Claremont as well as job opportunities.

And when it came time to decide, Garner said the panel was basing its decision on one basic issue, whether Sargent would be a threat to public safety. Garner and the panel's deputy commissioner decided she wouldn't be and granted her a parole date, though it came with several conditions, including that she have no unsupervised contact with children under 12 and that she be paroled to Los Angeles County, where Claremont is located.

But, as Bill Sessa, a spokesman with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, noted, the panel's decision "is only the beginning of a complex process that intentionally includes a system of checks and balances."

The next step is a procedural review by the parole board's legal staff. Following that review, the case is then forwarded to the governor for his independent decision. The governor can either decline a review of the decision, allowing it to stand; agree to parole, but extend the release date into the future; or return the decision for the entire 12-member board to reconsider. In murder cases, the governor can also reverse the parole board panel's decision, which he has 30 days to do.

In all likelihood, the case won't reach his desk until mid-April, Sessa said, with a final decision by about mid-June.