Welcome to the Prison Talk Online Community! Take a Minute and Sign Up Today!






Go Back   Prison Talk > U.S. REGIONAL FORUMS > CALIFORNIA > CDCR - What You Need to Know
Register Entertainment FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read

CDCR - What You Need to Know Information relating to the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation. Q&A for those new to the CDCR system should be posted here.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 03-27-2017, 12:32 PM
hopingwaiting's Avatar
hopingwaiting hopingwaiting is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Califorina, USA
Posts: 178
Thanks: 55
Thanked 184 Times in 76 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gvalliant View Post
Absolutely. It has some good things. Don't just hope. Do what you can to help.

Get behind and support organizations and people who are advocating to get this across the finish line. It still needs to pass. It still needs to stand up to opponents who will certainly be writing and stirring the pot in the general public. In coming days I bet. It still needs to get funding. It still needs to stand up to potential legal challenges as Dee and Patrick have pointed out.

Question to Dee and Patrick, I am interested in your insight. As I read it I saw places where they cite areas of penal code. For example for good time credit they cite Cal. Const., art. 1, sec. 32(b); Sections 5058, 5054 Penal Code. Reference: Cal. Const., art. 1, sec. 32(a) and 3041 Penal Code. Supposedly providing authority. There are similar references throughout.

That sounds great. I guess - not having any idea what any of it means. You two have understanding and knowledge on legal issues. Do those penal codes cited have merit to give that authority they claim??

Does anyone know who the most effective people to write IN SUPPORT of the regulations are in this point in the game?
__________________


Sponsored Links
  #52  
Old 03-27-2017, 01:30 PM
Mrs.Ruff Mrs.Ruff is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: California USA
Posts: 4
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

I'm confused..
d) SB 652 (Nielsen) defines as a “violent felony” the unlawful possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a felony enumerated as a violent felony. SB 652 has been referred to the Senate Public Safety Committee but has not been set for hearing.

has this passed? If not will someone be eligible for prop 57 early parole with this charge???
  #53  
Old 03-27-2017, 01:37 PM
missingdee's Avatar
missingdee missingdee is offline
Site Moderator

PTO Site Moderator 

 

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Metro Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 3,124
Thanks: 3,549
Thanked 5,358 Times in 2,036 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs.Ruff View Post
I'm confused..
d) SB 652 (Nielsen) defines as a “violent felony” the unlawful possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a felony enumerated as a violent felony. SB 652 has been referred to the Senate Public Safety Committee but has not been set for hearing.

has this passed? If not will someone be eligible for prop 57 early parole with this charge???


I believe that is pending legislation that has not been voted on. Currently someone with this charge would qualify, assuming there is not another factor involved that makes the charge violent.
__________________
Missing Dee. Finding Serenity.



"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it."
-Thomas Jefferson
The Following User Says Thank You to missingdee For This Useful Post:
miamac (03-27-2017)
  #54  
Old 03-27-2017, 01:52 PM
Mrs.Ruff Mrs.Ruff is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: California USA
Posts: 4
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

That's the primary charge, he does have an enhancement charge with it.
  #55  
Old 03-27-2017, 03:00 PM
missingdee's Avatar
missingdee missingdee is offline
Site Moderator

PTO Site Moderator 

 

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Metro Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 3,124
Thanks: 3,549
Thanked 5,358 Times in 2,036 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs.Ruff View Post
That's the primary charge, he does have an enhancement charge with it.
If ANY of his enhancements are listed in PC 667.5(c) (linked here) then he is considered a violent offender.

However, if you're only speaking to the specific enhancement you mentioned, then currently he would qualify for Prop 57 early parole consideration.

Whether or not any changes in 667.5(c) would be retroactive, I am not sure. I would assume not since it would create a situation where people who took plea bargains with enhancements that had an understanding that they would not be qualified as a violent offender would no longer be getting the benefit of their deals and there'd be a mass attempt to get their plea bargains brought back to court and withdrawn.

It's a "wait-and-see" situation, but it would not make sense for them to apply a new law to old plea bargains/sentencing schemes.

-E
__________________
Missing Dee. Finding Serenity.



"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it."
-Thomas Jefferson
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to missingdee For This Useful Post:
miamac (03-27-2017), qwerty (03-27-2017)
  #56  
Old 03-27-2017, 03:04 PM
SonsMother SonsMother is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: CA
Posts: 216
Thanks: 326
Thanked 180 Times in 91 Posts
Default

Son called Saturday...they did get a notice posted about the regulations and the men are very nervous. They are hopeful but still very nervous...

I think it would have been good that retroactive or not was spelled out entirely. Lots of disappointment if it turns out good time credit is not.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to SonsMother For This Useful Post:
miamac (03-27-2017), missingdee (03-27-2017), qwerty (03-27-2017)
  #57  
Old 03-27-2017, 03:10 PM
missingdee's Avatar
missingdee missingdee is offline
Site Moderator

PTO Site Moderator 

 

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Metro Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 3,124
Thanks: 3,549
Thanked 5,358 Times in 2,036 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SonsMother View Post
Son called Saturday...they did get a notice posted about the regulations and the men are very nervous. They are hopeful but still very nervous...

I think it would have been good that retroactive or not was spelled out entirely. Lots of disappointment if it turns out good time credit is not.
The language is complex.

There may be an "equal protection" issue if they do not make the time retroactive. Then the lawsuits come from the side I wasn't expecting...the inmates.

Until they actually start applying time in May, we may not know for sure.

And of course, these are only temporary/emergency regulations. It could be that they start out not being retroactive, but end up being retroactive by the time the permanent regs are put into place.

-E
__________________
Missing Dee. Finding Serenity.



"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it."
-Thomas Jefferson
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to missingdee For This Useful Post:
qwerty (03-27-2017), SonsMother (03-27-2017)
  #58  
Old 03-27-2017, 03:13 PM
missingdee's Avatar
missingdee missingdee is offline
Site Moderator

PTO Site Moderator 

 

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Metro Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 3,124
Thanks: 3,549
Thanked 5,358 Times in 2,036 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gvalliant View Post
Absolutely. It has some good things. Don't just hope. Do what you can to help.

Get behind and support organizations and people who are advocating to get this across the finish line. It still needs to pass. It still needs to stand up to opponents who will certainly be writing and stirring the pot in the general public. In coming days I bet. It still needs to get funding. It still needs to stand up to potential legal challenges as Dee and Patrick have pointed out.

Question to Dee and Patrick, I am interested in your insight. As I read it I saw places where they cite areas of penal code. For example for good time credit they cite Cal. Const., art. 1, sec. 32(b); Sections 5058, 5054 Penal Code. Reference: Cal. Const., art. 1, sec. 32(a) and 3041 Penal Code. Supposedly providing authority. There are similar references throughout.

That sounds great. I guess - not having any idea what any of it means. You two have understanding and knowledge on legal issues. Do those penal codes cited have merit to give that authority they claim??
Somehow I missed this originally......I'm going to have to take a deeper look at those. Times like this though I wish we still had a CA-based lawyer around the forums to kind of give a more official (if off-the-record) take on these things. Where have you gone, Gryphon?

Let me get back to you on this one....
__________________
Missing Dee. Finding Serenity.



"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it."
-Thomas Jefferson
The Following User Says Thank You to missingdee For This Useful Post:
gvalliant (03-27-2017)
  #59  
Old 03-27-2017, 03:21 PM
qwerty's Avatar
qwerty qwerty is offline
Holdin' on for dear life
Donation Award 
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: California, USA
Posts: 5,277
Thanks: 490
Thanked 340 Times in 177 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hopingwaiting View Post
Does anyone know who the most effective people to write IN SUPPORT of the regulations are in this point in the game?
The five-day public comment period ends Wednesday, March 29 (it's five CALENDAR days).

Where to write, from Initiate Justice:

CDCR
Vicky Waters
Phone: (916) 445-4950
Email: vicky.waters@cdcr.ca.gov
Deadline: March 29, 2017

The Legislature
A budget to implement Prop 57 must also be approved, so you should also contact Senator Nancy Skinner and Assemblymember Shirley Weber's offices, since they chair the Public Safety Budget committees that have budget oversight power. Email and/or call them before the April hearings:

Senator Skinner:
Phone: (916) 651-4009
Email: erasmo.viveros@sen.ca.gov
Address:
State Capitol, Room 2059
Sacramento, CA 95814

Assemblymember Weber:
Phone: (916) 319-2079
Email: anthony.dimartino@asm.ca.gov
Address:
PO Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249

Also, the state Office of Administrative Law website says we should also email a copy of our letter to them, too:
"If you wish to make comments on a regulation listed here, please send them to the agency contact person and the OAL Reference Attorney at staff@oal.ca.gov."
__________________



Let's give 'em something to talk about!


Last edited by qwerty; 03-27-2017 at 03:47 PM.. Reason: more updates about deadline, OAL email
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to qwerty For This Useful Post:
gvalliant (03-27-2017), hopingwaiting (03-28-2017), miamac (03-27-2017), missingdee (03-27-2017)
  #60  
Old 03-27-2017, 03:23 PM
gvalliant gvalliant is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: California
Posts: 688
Thanks: 1,264
Thanked 1,396 Times in 577 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hopingwaiting View Post
Does anyone know who the most effective people to write IN SUPPORT of the regulations are in this point in the game?
Below is contact info for advocacy group I've had a lot of contact with. They were doing Yeoman's Work getting the vote on 57. Unlike some advocates for the vote, initiatejustice has continued diligently working through regulations and implementation process. They could use help if you would be willing to reach out to them.

initiatejustice@gmail.com
https://www.facebook.com/initiatejustic1/

email address goes to co-founder Taina Vargas-Edmond. I spoke with her Sunday. She and a group for initiatejustice travelled to Sacramento on Thursday (23rd) and met with several legislators to advocate 57 regulations, budget, and implementation. Including Senator Skinner. Some things the Senator shared:

1) Upcoming budget hearing meetings for the senate and assembly are Apr 20 and Apr 24. Initiatejustice will be there. Senator Skinner said having more people is important. Past hearings on criminal justice reform are full of cops opposing. Supporter attendance numbers are usually minimal. This makes it tougher. Try to be there, especially if you live in Sacramento area, it will help. Same for public comment hearings when they occur.

2) The proposed budget already included money for 57 and that needs support. Senator Skinner says $19 million has been "additionally requested". More training, new jobs / positions etc to process and monitor; groups jumping in and trying to grab what they can out of this. Additional $19 million may not seem like much in a $11 billion prison budget. Still it's one more obstacle.

More money budgeted means more programs and opportunity available. Inadequate budget for 57 will be frustrating and bad for our LO's who want to do their best but can't due to limited program availability and long wait times. It matters.

Last edited by gvalliant; 03-27-2017 at 03:25 PM.. Reason: remove duplicate info from prior poster
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to gvalliant For This Useful Post:
marie8899 (03-31-2017), miamac (03-27-2017), missingdee (03-27-2017), qwerty (03-27-2017)
  #61  
Old 03-27-2017, 03:31 PM
qwerty's Avatar
qwerty qwerty is offline
Holdin' on for dear life
Donation Award 
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: California, USA
Posts: 5,277
Thanks: 490
Thanked 340 Times in 177 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by missingdee View Post
What I am not clear on is whether this pertains to conduct credit or just milestones. I recently heard from my friend that she was told by her counselor that the conduct credit would be retroactive. Then again, how many times over the years have we heard a CO or a counselor give information that turned out to be false?
My husband was also told by prison staff that conduct credit is a percentage applied to one's entire sentence (just as it has been for years for determinates and a few indeterminates before this). Hope that's the case!
__________________



Let's give 'em something to talk about!

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to qwerty For This Useful Post:
miamac (03-27-2017), missingdee (03-27-2017), SonsMother (03-27-2017)
  #62  
Old 03-27-2017, 03:32 PM
missingdee's Avatar
missingdee missingdee is offline
Site Moderator

PTO Site Moderator 

 

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Metro Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 3,124
Thanks: 3,549
Thanked 5,358 Times in 2,036 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by qwerty View Post
My husband was also told by prison staff that conduct credit is a percentage applied to one's entire sentence (just as it has been for years for determinates and a few indeterminates before this). Hope that's the case!


It would just make sense. And I mentioned equal protection....why should an inmate who comes in on May 2nd get their full term at 80% while one who has been disciplinary-free for years wouldn't get those same credits?
__________________
Missing Dee. Finding Serenity.



"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it."
-Thomas Jefferson
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to missingdee For This Useful Post:
miamac (03-27-2017), qwerty (03-27-2017), SonsMother (03-27-2017)
  #63  
Old 03-27-2017, 07:11 PM
miamac's Avatar
miamac miamac is offline
Site Moderator Gone Mad

Staff Superstar Winner PTO Site Moderator 

 

Join Date: May 2013
Location: ORnativeAZresCAtied
Posts: 10,558
Thanks: 14,178
Thanked 20,659 Times in 7,367 Posts
Default

On the retroactivity--

It seems they went out of their way to say that the education award is retroactive, my gut feeling is why would they not make that clear on the rest if they, too, were retroactive. I read it as "on this date forward, credit earning will begin", but I guess we'll have to see.
The Following User Says Thank You to miamac For This Useful Post:
qwerty (03-28-2017)
  #64  
Old 03-27-2017, 10:21 PM
JVSQUEEN's Avatar
JVSQUEEN JVSQUEEN is offline
Registered User

Pumpkin Hunt Participant 2014 

 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: His heart
Posts: 132
Thanks: 114
Thanked 35 Times in 24 Posts
Default

~~~Effective May 1, 2017, good time credits to be expanded from 15% to 20% for people with "violent" offenses or Lifers with the possibility of parole~~~
Does anyone know if this will be retroactive or applies to the time left to serve? Thank you in advance.
__________________
~~The state has his body but I have his heart, mind, and his soul~~

~~PATIENTLY and FAITHFULLY waiting for my KING to come home~~
  #65  
Old 03-27-2017, 10:22 PM
missingdee's Avatar
missingdee missingdee is offline
Site Moderator

PTO Site Moderator 

 

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Metro Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 3,124
Thanks: 3,549
Thanked 5,358 Times in 2,036 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JVSQUEEN View Post
~~~Effective May 1, 2017, good time credits to be expanded from 15% to 20% for people with "violent" offenses or Lifers with the possibility of parole~~~
Does anyone know if this will be retroactive or applies to the time left to serve? Thank you in advance.


Tentatively the answer seems to be only applies to time left to serve based on the language. However some of the inmates are hearing differently. I don't think we'll know for absolute sure until May 1st.
__________________
Missing Dee. Finding Serenity.



"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it."
-Thomas Jefferson
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to missingdee For This Useful Post:
JVSQUEEN (03-30-2017), qwerty (03-28-2017)
  #66  
Old 03-29-2017, 10:54 AM
oshaye25 oshaye25 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: US
Posts: 294
Thanks: 26
Thanked 85 Times in 58 Posts
Default

I have a question what's the difference between serious offenses and violent offenses
  #67  
Old 03-29-2017, 10:55 AM
missingdee's Avatar
missingdee missingdee is offline
Site Moderator

PTO Site Moderator 

 

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Metro Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 3,124
Thanks: 3,549
Thanked 5,358 Times in 2,036 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oshaye25 View Post
I have a question what's the difference between serious offenses and violent offenses


Violent offenses are listed in 667.5(c) and 1192.7, serious offenses are only listed in 667.5(c)
__________________
Missing Dee. Finding Serenity.



"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it."
-Thomas Jefferson
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to missingdee For This Useful Post:
qwerty (03-29-2017), sonya86 (03-31-2017)
  #68  
Old 03-29-2017, 11:10 AM
miamac's Avatar
miamac miamac is offline
Site Moderator Gone Mad

Staff Superstar Winner PTO Site Moderator 

 

Join Date: May 2013
Location: ORnativeAZresCAtied
Posts: 10,558
Thanks: 14,178
Thanked 20,659 Times in 7,367 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oshaye25 View Post
I have a question what's the difference between serious offenses and violent offenses
All violent offenses are serious, but not all serious offenses are violent. "Violent" in this case is defined, as missingdee said, by penal code 667.5(c) which can be found here. Violent offenses are strikeable offenses and automatically qualify for min 80% (formally 85%) as of May 1st.
The Following User Says Thank You to miamac For This Useful Post:
missingdee (03-29-2017)
  #69  
Old 03-29-2017, 11:39 AM
oshaye25 oshaye25 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: US
Posts: 294
Thanks: 26
Thanked 85 Times in 58 Posts
Default

Because it says on may 1, 2017 good time credits to expanded from 15 to 20 for people with violent offenses or lifers with the possibility of parole
And then it says good time credits to be expanded from 20 to 33 for people with serious offenses. Does that apply to maximum security as well. So is robbery under 15 to 20 or 20 to 15 percent. I am confused.
  #70  
Old 03-29-2017, 11:46 AM
miamac's Avatar
miamac miamac is offline
Site Moderator Gone Mad

Staff Superstar Winner PTO Site Moderator 

 

Join Date: May 2013
Location: ORnativeAZresCAtied
Posts: 10,558
Thanks: 14,178
Thanked 20,659 Times in 7,367 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oshaye25 View Post
Because it says on may 1, 2017 good time credits to expanded from 15 to 20 for people with violent offenses or lifers with the possibility of parole
And then it says good time credits to be expanded from 20 to 33 for people with serious offenses. Does that apply to maximum security as well. So is robbery under 15 to 20 or 20 to 15 percent. I am confused.
Robbery is a violent offense, #9 on the list of violent offenses under pc667.5(c). Nothing regarding serious offense or non-violent offense will apply. He will qualify for 20% as of May 1st. Missingdee did the math earlier in this thread and that will reduce their time by roughly 19 days per year.

Security level is separate from their charges. You can be a VO in a medium security facility or a NVO in a max. That's security specific to the inmate and charges are only one factor in that decision.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to miamac For This Useful Post:
missingdee (03-30-2017), oshaye25 (03-29-2017), qwerty (03-29-2017)
  #71  
Old 03-29-2017, 11:48 AM
oshaye25 oshaye25 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: US
Posts: 294
Thanks: 26
Thanked 85 Times in 58 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miamac View Post
Robbery is a violent offense, #9 on the list of violent offenses under pc667.5(c). Nothing regarding serious offense or non-violent offense will apply. He will qualify for 20% as of May 1st. Missingdee did the math earlier in this thread and that will reduce their time by roughly 19 days per year.


Thank you so much. I understand it now.
The Following User Says Thank You to oshaye25 For This Useful Post:
miamac (03-29-2017)
  #72  
Old 03-30-2017, 08:44 AM
marie8899 marie8899 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: California, U.S.A.
Posts: 972
Thanks: 3,547
Thanked 1,034 Times in 489 Posts
Default

From the CDCR website: "When will Proposition 57 go into effect?


"The juvenile justice provisions have already gone into effect. CDCR has written
regulations – now with the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) – to enact changes to the
way credits are awarded to inmates, as well as expand parole consideration for nonviolent
offenders. The new parole consideration process for non-violent offenders is
expected to go into effect on July 1, 2017. Good Conduct Credits are expected to go
into effect on May 1, 2017, and Milestone Completion, Rehabilitative Achievement, and
Educational Merit credits are expected to go into effect on August 1, 2017."

More information is available: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/proposition57...aq-prop-57.pdf

Last edited by marie8899; 03-30-2017 at 08:46 AM..
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to marie8899 For This Useful Post:
missingdee (03-30-2017), qwerty (03-30-2017)
  #73  
Old 03-30-2017, 01:33 PM
Luv0fHisLife's Avatar
Luv0fHisLife Luv0fHisLife is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Beautiful So. Cal
Posts: 5,170
Thanks: 1,407
Thanked 956 Times in 701 Posts
Default

Hello,

Please move my post if it is not in the correct thread.

I have a question that needs answering, if anyone could help it would be much appreciated.

In 2001, my husband was convicted of Penal Code 459 (Residential Burglary while no one was home). He was given a strike for it. He served his time for that. He was caught up in another case for Carjacking Penal Code 215, Gun enhancements Penal Code 120022.53, and gang enhancements. To which his time was doubled up due to his first strike. He is under the impression that Penal Code 459 is NO longer a strike-able offense, is he correct in that? Does Prop. 57 affect him in anyway?
__________________
Somos Dos Almas
Que Estan
Firmemente Enamorados

  #74  
Old 03-30-2017, 01:53 PM
miamac's Avatar
miamac miamac is offline
Site Moderator Gone Mad

Staff Superstar Winner PTO Site Moderator 

 

Join Date: May 2013
Location: ORnativeAZresCAtied
Posts: 10,558
Thanks: 14,178
Thanked 20,659 Times in 7,367 Posts
Default

0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luv0fHisLife View Post
Does Prop. 57 affect him in anyway?
The biggest determinate in how he will benefit under Prop 57 is whether he's viewed as a violent or non-violent offender. The fact that he has a gun enhancement makes him a VO. He will qualify for credit earning, milestones and 20% good time.

Was he charged with first or second degree burglary? First degree is a strikeable felony, second degree (to the best of my understanding) is a wobbler but generally a misdemeanor or non-strikeable felony.

Last edited by miamac; 03-30-2017 at 01:57 PM..
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to miamac For This Useful Post:
Luv0fHisLife (03-30-2017), Patrickj (03-30-2017), qwerty (03-30-2017)
  #75  
Old 03-30-2017, 02:02 PM
Patrickj's Avatar
Patrickj Patrickj is offline
Moderator

PTO Moderator 

 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atwater CA. USA.
Posts: 2,628
Thanks: 2,297
Thanked 2,413 Times in 1,070 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luv0fHisLife View Post
Hello,

Please move my post if it is not in the correct thread.

I have a question that needs answering, if anyone could help it would be much appreciated.

In 2001, my husband was convicted of Penal Code 459 (Residential Burglary while no one was home). He was given a strike for it. He served his time for that. He was caught up in another case for Carjacking Penal Code 215, Gun enhancements Penal Code 120022.53, and gang enhancements. To which his time was doubled up due to his first strike. He is under the impression that Penal Code 459 is NO longer a strike-able offense, is he correct in that? Does Prop. 57 affect him in anyway?
Residential burglary.(459P.C.) as of today is still defined under 667.5 which makes it a violent crime. Now with his new offense he is a double striker with a gun enhancement. Violent offenders aren't going to get much help from Prop.57 as of yet . P.C 460 makes it first degree 460P.C(a) Every burglary of an inhabited dwelling house, vessel, as defined in the Harbors and Navigation Code, which is inhabited and designed for habitation, floating home, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 18075.55 of the Health and Safety Code, or trailer coach, as defined by the Vehicle Code, or the inhabited portion of any other building, is burglary of the first degree.
__________________
Be a friend to everyone,never know when you may need their help

Last edited by Patrickj; 03-30-2017 at 02:11 PM..
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Patrickj For This Useful Post:
Luv0fHisLife (03-30-2017), miamac (03-30-2017), missingdee (03-30-2017), qwerty (03-30-2017)
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Prop 57, Part II, Post Proposition Passing Info miamac California Legal Help 457 03-24-2017 01:55 PM
Prop 57, Part I, “The Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016” Monique83 California General Prison Talk 11 01-23-2017 01:29 PM
Implementation of Inmate Credit Earning Program at California out of state correction Shari California General Prison Talk 5 09-29-2010 09:57 PM
Part of Prop 9 Overturned regarding parolees linda5280 California Parole, Probation & Release 0 03-28-2009 06:16 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:59 PM.
Copyright © 2001- 2017 Prison Talk Online
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Website Design & Custom vBulletin Skins by: Relivo Media
Message Board Statistics