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






Go Back   Prison Talk > U.S. REGIONAL FORUMS > CALIFORNIA > California Legal Help
Register Entertainment FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read

California Legal Help Topics, Discussions and Information relating to Legal Information specific to the State of California. This information is *NOT PROFESSIONAL* and should always be fact-checked!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 02-04-2017, 04:41 PM
Kngpin48 Kngpin48 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miamac View Post
Rape riots? Per your post you didn't do any time in a Level 4, so we'll just factor that into our perspective.

I met my husband when he was sitting at well over 100 points, so yes..there are a lot things that help get you there that aren't good. He went in at age 20 and has been down 15 years, he's sitting at just under 100 and thriving in a Level 3. So in that regard, I appreciate the shift in housing criteria because he's working his @$$ off and had he remained in a Level 4, he'd have little to nowhere to go when he'd completed the limited programming there.

Blanket treatment of inmates, which I'm sure you experienced, does little to encourage rehabilitation. This shift takes into account more than just the numbers on a page. It gives credit to someone like my husband, who is write-up free for over five years, is maxing out the available programs and he's actively working his rehabilitation plan. At the previous rate of point drop, he would have served his entire 37 years at a Level 4 regardless of his behaviour. THAT'S bananas. I'd also like to point out that the overrides and any realignment of the point system is separate from Prop 57.

As far as CDCR getting a long leash as to when and how to implement 57, you and I agree there. Voters passed a blank proposition. Wouldn't have been my choice, but we're here now.
On the contrary, I most certainly have served time on a 4 yard. This is not my 1st rodeo... anyway Good luck to you and GOD bless you!....I'm out so prop 57 can suck it!!
Sponsored Links
  #252  
Old 02-06-2017, 01:33 PM
miamac's Avatar
miamac miamac is online now
Site Moderator Gone Mad

Staff Superstar Winner PTO Site Moderator 

 

Join Date: May 2013
Location: ORnativeAZresCAtied
Posts: 6,240
Thanks: 8,002
Thanked 9,945 Times in 3,896 Posts
Default

Opposition to non-violent status and its intersection with 57 has begun. Assemblyman Kevin Kiley has filed a proposal, along with two Assemblywomen (Melendez and Gonzales) to expand the title of "violent offender".

I think it is particularly important to do this now,” Kiley said. “The initiative passed, and its language suggested that it applies to only nonviolent offenders. But the people who have been convicted of the type of crimes in my bill would be considered nonviolent, even though common sense shows they are acting out violence against their victims.

Read full article here.

We can call this 57 Fallout, which was discussed at length before the passing of 57. If the list of VO is expanded, it not only eliminates the possibility of early parole consideration but does it not also bump them up to 85% status and a permanent violent felony label? Whether you feel certain sex crimes or animal cruelty is an act of violence or not, the point is that 57 will ripple and create changes outside of 57. I'm not convinced voters understood or believed this would happen.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to miamac For This Useful Post:
gvalliant (02-07-2017), Patrickj (02-06-2017), Sarianna (02-08-2017)
  #253  
Old 02-06-2017, 01:56 PM
Patrickj's Avatar
Patrickj Patrickj is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atwater CA. USA.
Posts: 2,084
Thanks: 940
Thanked 1,126 Times in 608 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miamac View Post
Opposition to non-violent status and its intersection with 57 has begun. Assemblyman Kevin Kiley has filed a proposal, along with two Assemblywomen (Melendez and Gonzales) to expand the title of "violent offender".

I think it is particularly important to do this now,” Kiley said. “The initiative passed, and its language suggested that it applies to only nonviolent offenders. But the people who have been convicted of the type of crimes in my bill would be considered nonviolent, even though common sense shows they are acting out violence against their victims.

Read full article here.

We can call this 57 Fallout, which was discussed at length before the passing of 57. If the list of VO is expanded, it not only eliminates the possibility of early parole consideration but does it not also bump them up to 85% status and a permanent violent felony label? Whether you feel certain sex crimes or animal cruelty is an act of violence or not, the point is that 57 will ripple and create changes outside of 57. I'm not convinced voters understood or believed this would happen.
I read this article(good article I must say) a few days ago. It also states that in order to change the violent sections of the penal code it takes a 2/3 vote in both houses (Prop. 21)
This is has been what I have been preaching about in earlier post that this Prop57 is smoke and mirrors. It will help some but not the ones that will fall in to a VO category.
There will be more battles when CDCR finally gets something down in black and white. Then people can comment and also complain to their elected officials. . I know most people do not do nothing during these comment times,but victims rights and other groups are watching Prop.57 very closely. Prop. 57 can have good results, but in order to see the relief that is needed major changes need to be addressed in the penal code. I already see CDCR circle talking about some of these things. One is lifers getting good time credits to apply towards their first board date. CDCR has been dodging direct answers to these questions. We all knew it was going to be a wait and see if this Prop.57 passed now we wait and see
__________________
Be a friend to everyone,never know when you may need their help
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Patrickj For This Useful Post:
gvalliant (02-07-2017), miamac (02-06-2017), missingdee (02-18-2017), qwerty (02-06-2017), Sarianna (02-08-2017)
  #254  
Old 02-06-2017, 04:59 PM
mellemel619 mellemel619 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Sunny Southern California
Posts: 6
Thanks: 2
Thanked 14 Times in 5 Posts
Default Current Legislature pertaining to 57

Hi Ladies,

I have attached the current Assembly and Senate bills that are related to Prop. 57. All of them look to modify/amend 667.5.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf AB 27.pdf (137.5 KB, 18 views)
File Type: pdf AB 197.pdf (140.8 KB, 13 views)
File Type: pdf SB 75.pdf (145.6 KB, 16 views)
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to mellemel619 For This Useful Post:
gvalliant (02-07-2017), miamac (02-06-2017), missingdee (02-21-2017), Patrickj (02-06-2017)
  #255  
Old 02-06-2017, 05:09 PM
miamac's Avatar
miamac miamac is online now
Site Moderator Gone Mad

Staff Superstar Winner PTO Site Moderator 

 

Join Date: May 2013
Location: ORnativeAZresCAtied
Posts: 6,240
Thanks: 8,002
Thanked 9,945 Times in 3,896 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mellemel619 View Post
Hi Ladies,

I have attached the current Assembly and Senate bills that are related to Prop. 57. All of them look to modify/amend 667.5.
Thanks for posting. Those are the bills mentioned by the article below.

As Patrick (yes! we do have men in this forum and they're amazing contributors!...lol) mentioned, they read that it must pass by 2/3rd or more in order to enact the changes.


27—
This bill would additionally define as violent felonies rape, sodomy, penetration with a foreign object, or oral copulation, if the victim was unconscious, if the victim was incapable of giving consent due to intoxication, if the victim was incapable of giving legal consent because of a mental disorder or developmental or physical disability, if the victim submitted to the act under the belief that the person committing the act was someone known to the victim other than the accused, or if the act was accomplished against the victim’s will by threatening to use the authority of a public official, thereby amending Proposition 36 by adding to the list of violent felonies that can be prosecuted as a 3rd strike. By changing the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.


197—
This bill would additionally define as violent felonies child abduction, providing a child under 16 years of age for purposes of a lewd act, abduction of a minor for purposes of prostitution, child abuse, sodomy with a minor, oral copulation of a minor, contact with a minor to commit specified offenses, arranging a meeting with a minor for lewd purposes, employing a minor to produce sexual matter, elder and dependent adult abuse, false imprisonment of an elder or dependent adult, and animal abuse, as specified, thereby amending Proposition 36 by adding to the list of violent felonies that can be prosecuted as a 3rd strike. By changing the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.


75—
This bill would additionally define, among other crimes, the offenses of vehicular manslaughter, human trafficking involving a minor, assault with a deadly weapon, solicitation of murder, rape under various specified circumstances, and grand theft of a firearm as violent felonies for purposes of imposing specified sentence enhancements. The bill would also make conforming changes.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to miamac For This Useful Post:
gvalliant (02-07-2017), Sarianna (02-08-2017)
  #256  
Old 02-06-2017, 07:18 PM
Patrickj's Avatar
Patrickj Patrickj is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atwater CA. USA.
Posts: 2,084
Thanks: 940
Thanked 1,126 Times in 608 Posts
Default

These bills AB27, AB197 & SB75 have just been referred to Public Safety Committee I see these two AB bills being put together if they get past Committee Will be interesting if any of these pass this session I will follow them and anyone else can follow them here also https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...chClient.xhtml
__________________
Be a friend to everyone,never know when you may need their help
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Patrickj For This Useful Post:
gvalliant (02-07-2017), miamac (02-07-2017)
  #257  
Old 02-07-2017, 09:28 AM
gvalliant gvalliant is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Costa Mesa, California, USA
Posts: 233
Thanks: 377
Thanked 462 Times in 190 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrickj View Post
These bills AB27, AB197 & SB75 have just been referred to Public Safety Committee I see these two AB bills being put together if they get past Committee Will be interesting if any of these pass this session I will follow them and anyone else can follow them here also https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...chClient.xhtml
I bookmarked that page. Thanks. As you have stated, changes to the penal code will be an element of how prop 57 is implemented. Changes are brewing aren't they? These assembly bills make things worse not better. Notice the dates these were submitted - Dec 5, Jan 10, Jan 19. These senators wasted little time reacting to 57. I think it is reasonable to assume none of these would have been introduced without 57. If any or all are passed, these will eliminate some early parole possibilities offered under 57.

This activity leaves me with 2 questions. I wonder if anyone has insight or comments:

1) Bad enough these new VO classifications would apply to new offenses. Would it be possible to retroactively apply the VO classification to anyone already incarcerated under these offenses with NVO classification? I hope not.

2) For the credit portion of 57, something would have to be changed to PC 2933.5 regarding 85% credit limit to provide any relief to a VO. Apparently no Senator has introduced any bill to that effect. If CDCR tries to include credit relief for VO's in their draft does CDCR have authority to then introduce a bill amending 2933.5 of will they need some senator(s) to propose a bill ?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to gvalliant For This Useful Post:
miamac (02-07-2017), Patrickj (02-07-2017)
  #258  
Old 02-07-2017, 11:15 AM
miamac's Avatar
miamac miamac is online now
Site Moderator Gone Mad

Staff Superstar Winner PTO Site Moderator 

 

Join Date: May 2013
Location: ORnativeAZresCAtied
Posts: 6,240
Thanks: 8,002
Thanked 9,945 Times in 3,896 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gvalliant View Post
1) Bad enough these new VO classifications would apply to new offenses. Would it be possible to retroactively apply the VO classification to anyone already incarcerated under these offenses with NVO classification? I hope not.
I don't know why, but I assumed it would be blanketed across new and existing inmates. If the purpose was to withdraw the NVO parole consideration, it wouldn't affect those already in without retroactivity.

But maybe I'm wrong?

Also, got word that the 85% to 66% rumor is back up and running after ARC paid a facility visit. *sigh* If anyone else hears this or has something to add (like where the hell this is coming from...again) please share.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to miamac For This Useful Post:
marie8899 (03-01-2017), Patrickj (02-07-2017)
  #259  
Old 02-07-2017, 11:50 AM
Patrickj's Avatar
Patrickj Patrickj is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atwater CA. USA.
Posts: 2,084
Thanks: 940
Thanked 1,126 Times in 608 Posts
Default

2) For the credit portion of 57, something would have to be changed to PC 2933.5 regarding 85% credit limit to provide any relief to a VO. Apparently no Senator has introduced any bill to that effect. If CDCR tries to include credit relief for VO's in their draft does CDCR have authority to then introduce a bill amending 2933.5 of will they need some senator(s) to propose a bill ?[/quote]

CDCR, would use a State Senator or Assemblyperson to introduce any changes to the Penal Code. Another thing that could happen is they could attach said change to another piece of legislation as a rider.

I will have to do a little research on your first question. Working off the top of my head retroactivity usually must be spelled out, or it must only be for a positive result( not always how CDCR interprets things)
.
__________________
Be a friend to everyone,never know when you may need their help

Last edited by Patrickj; 02-07-2017 at 11:54 AM..
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Patrickj For This Useful Post:
gvalliant (02-09-2017), miamac (02-07-2017), missingdee (02-08-2017)
  #260  
Old 02-07-2017, 12:06 PM
miamac's Avatar
miamac miamac is online now
Site Moderator Gone Mad

Staff Superstar Winner PTO Site Moderator 

 

Join Date: May 2013
Location: ORnativeAZresCAtied
Posts: 6,240
Thanks: 8,002
Thanked 9,945 Times in 3,896 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrickj View Post

I will have to do a little research on your first question. Working off the top of my head retroactivity usually must be spelled out, or it must only be for a positive result( not always how CDCR interprets things)
.
I just went through AB27 and didn't see anything about being retroactive. So that's interesting to me that you'll have people sitting in with the same exact charges but with different felony status and sentencing guidelines. I suppose I have read where people sentenced before "Year XX" are handled one way and after "Year XX" another. Ahhhh, justice.
  #261  
Old 02-07-2017, 05:08 PM
Luvly143 Luvly143 is offline
his one and only wife
 

Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,249
Thanks: 127
Thanked 304 Times in 217 Posts
Default

This is so scary for me. So my husband is serving 5 yrs at 50% for assault with a deadly weapon. He's scheduled to be released this December, maybe sooner. Does this mean they could try to change him from 50% to 85%? WTFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
  #262  
Old 02-07-2017, 05:17 PM
miamac's Avatar
miamac miamac is online now
Site Moderator Gone Mad

Staff Superstar Winner PTO Site Moderator 

 

Join Date: May 2013
Location: ORnativeAZresCAtied
Posts: 6,240
Thanks: 8,002
Thanked 9,945 Times in 3,896 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luvly143 View Post
This is so scary for me. So my husband is serving 5 yrs at 50% for assault with a deadly weapon. He's scheduled to be released this December, maybe sooner. Does this mean they could try to change him from 50% to 85%? WTFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
I think we're reading that probably not, that it will be from this change forward. But keep a close eye on it and we will, too.

Don't panic.

Last edited by miamac; 02-07-2017 at 05:20 PM..
  #263  
Old 02-07-2017, 05:39 PM
Patrickj's Avatar
Patrickj Patrickj is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atwater CA. USA.
Posts: 2,084
Thanks: 940
Thanked 1,126 Times in 608 Posts
Default

One thing here I think we can all relax a little,(No chicken little syndrome) these three bills are still in committee. They could die in committee, With these three bills being so closely alike. I don't see any of them passing but they may rewrite a new bill to clear up the differences in the first three. It is still early in the year there will be more ridicules legislation coming out. The closer we get to the end of the physical year spending matters will over take most of the attention in Sacramento, Not saying don't stay informed but don't get yourselves in a uproar yet.
We still need to see what kind of policy and procedure CDCR is going to write for Prop.57. See what kind of legal mumble jumble it is. My view we will see nothing that pertains to policy and procedure on Prop57. until summertime at the earliest. Lets stay vigilant in watching CDCR and our state legislators that they don't slip something through on emergency issues for public safety
.
__________________
Be a friend to everyone,never know when you may need their help

Last edited by Patrickj; 02-07-2017 at 05:41 PM..
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Patrickj For This Useful Post:
gvalliant (02-09-2017), marie8899 (03-01-2017), miamac (02-07-2017), qwerty (02-12-2017)
  #264  
Old 02-07-2017, 05:45 PM
miamac's Avatar
miamac miamac is online now
Site Moderator Gone Mad

Staff Superstar Winner PTO Site Moderator 

 

Join Date: May 2013
Location: ORnativeAZresCAtied
Posts: 6,240
Thanks: 8,002
Thanked 9,945 Times in 3,896 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrickj View Post

We still need to see what kind of policy and procedure CDCR is going to write for Prop.57. See what kind of legal mumble jumble it is. My view we will see nothing that pertains to policy and procedure on Prop57. until summertime at the earliest. Lets vigilant in watching CDCR and our state legislators that they don't slip something through on emergency issues for public safety
.
I wish ARC would stay out of the facilities and stop stirring the pot. Budnick has been visiting (again) and dropping crumbs instead of solid pieces of information. Their visits have spurred more rumor than anything else.

I agree that it's too soon to know anything solid. Thanks for the reminder.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to miamac For This Useful Post:
missingdee (02-08-2017), Patrickj (02-07-2017)
  #265  
Old 02-07-2017, 05:47 PM
Luvly143 Luvly143 is offline
his one and only wife
 

Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,249
Thanks: 127
Thanked 304 Times in 217 Posts
Default

Thanks my friends... I almost panicked.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Luvly143 For This Useful Post:
miamac (02-07-2017), Mrs key (02-07-2017), Patrickj (02-08-2017)
  #266  
Old 02-08-2017, 04:36 PM
missingdee's Avatar
missingdee missingdee is online now
She's Home! Moderator

PTO Moderator 

 

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Metro Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 1,856
Thanks: 1,865
Thanked 2,477 Times in 1,077 Posts
Default

By all things I'm looking at, it appears that the State Legislature is going to make it more difficult to qualify for Prop 57 relief.

They say "not retroactive" but that's kind of ambiguous....does that mean that people who committed the crimes prior to implementation of the law are still eligible for 57 relief? Does that mean that crimes committed prior to implementation don't count as violent for enhancement purposes (since currently a prior violent within 5 years tacks on a 5 year enhancement)?

Logically, some of what they're suggesting being added on makes sense to me. But it doesn't really do anything to reform criminal justice (I'm of the mindframe that 3 strikes should be repealed, but I don't think we're quite there....) and makes even fewer people eligible to benefit from Prop 57's changes.

I guess we'll see....
__________________
The Colorblind Moderator (I'm not even going to try to use green down here, I'll embarass myself! LOL!) Currently assisting in all forums and actively monitoring Wives and Girlfriends in Prison and the California forums.

#ByeCDCR #TimesUp #HomeForChristmas
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to missingdee For This Useful Post:
gvalliant (02-09-2017), Tatiana23 (02-08-2017)
  #267  
Old 02-08-2017, 05:08 PM
missingdee's Avatar
missingdee missingdee is online now
She's Home! Moderator

PTO Moderator 

 

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Metro Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 1,856
Thanks: 1,865
Thanked 2,477 Times in 1,077 Posts
Default

On the other end of the spectrum, which we haven't been discussing at too much length since the bulk of the questions seem to be about the adult portion of 57.....the juvenile portion is active and juveniles are getting hearings to determine whether or not their already-active cases can be moved under juvenile jurisdiction...

http://santamariatimes.com/news/loca...b310212d1.html
__________________
The Colorblind Moderator (I'm not even going to try to use green down here, I'll embarass myself! LOL!) Currently assisting in all forums and actively monitoring Wives and Girlfriends in Prison and the California forums.

#ByeCDCR #TimesUp #HomeForChristmas
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to missingdee For This Useful Post:
marie8899 (03-01-2017), qwerty (02-12-2017)
  #268  
Old 02-13-2017, 04:31 PM
1yeetz2008 1yeetz2008 is offline
1yeetz
 

Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: California US
Posts: 2
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Prop 57

Has anyone heard any updates on Prop 57?
  #269  
Old 02-17-2017, 07:06 PM
gvalliant gvalliant is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Costa Mesa, California, USA
Posts: 233
Thanks: 377
Thanked 462 Times in 190 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mellemel619 View Post
Hi Ladies,

I have attached the current Assembly and Senate bills that are related to Prop. 57. All of them look to modify/amend 667.5.
Last week I sent those bills to Taina who founded Initiatejustice. She has some connection to folks in the capital. She emailed comments which were insightful. Sharing below:

"Thanks so much for sending these my way. I had not seen them yet. The good news is that they all require a 2/3 majority to pass, so that will be a huge hurdle to clear. I also think that, if they did pass, the Governor may be hesitant to sign them because they amend Prop 36 and undermine Prop 57, and in general he vetoes bills that go against the will of the voters.

Please let me know if there is a campaign to oppose these bills that we could be supportive of."
The Following User Says Thank You to gvalliant For This Useful Post:
qwerty (02-18-2017)
  #270  
Old 02-17-2017, 07:53 PM
miamac's Avatar
miamac miamac is online now
Site Moderator Gone Mad

Staff Superstar Winner PTO Site Moderator 

 

Join Date: May 2013
Location: ORnativeAZresCAtied
Posts: 6,240
Thanks: 8,002
Thanked 9,945 Times in 3,896 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gvalliant View Post
Last week I sent those bills to Taina who founded Initiatejustice. She has some connection to folks in the capital. She emailed comments which were insightful. Sharing below:

"Thanks so much for sending these my way. I had not seen them yet. The good news is that they all require a 2/3 majority to pass, so that will be a huge hurdle to clear. I also think that, if they did pass, the Governor may be hesitant to sign them because they amend Prop 36 and undermine Prop 57, and in general he vetoes bills that go against the will of the voters.

Please let me know if there is a campaign to oppose these bills that we could be supportive of."
Interesting. I'm not overly familiar with 36 so I'll have to read up on that. This opposition isn't a surprise, or shouldn't be. It was discussed by lay-persons and anti-57 campaigns leading up to the vote. So the idea that it won't pass because it undermines 57 doesn't hold much weight for me. It would eliminate the the opportunity for newly convicted(are we still saying non-retroactive?) to be eligible for early parole consideration, but that isn't the only section to 57.

I have to laugh a little at "the will of the voters"-- most of whom had no idea what they were voting on. Sorry guys, my cynical glasses are thick tonight. I could be wrong, but I feel like 57 passed with a heavy assurance that the amendments being proposed now would have support. Bait and switch to get votes.
  #271  
Old 02-18-2017, 01:35 AM
missingdee's Avatar
missingdee missingdee is online now
She's Home! Moderator

PTO Moderator 

 

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Metro Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 1,856
Thanks: 1,865
Thanked 2,477 Times in 1,077 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gvalliant View Post
Last week I sent those bills to Taina who founded Initiatejustice. She has some connection to folks in the capital. She emailed comments which were insightful. Sharing below:

"Thanks so much for sending these my way. I had not seen them yet. The good news is that they all require a 2/3 majority to pass, so that will be a huge hurdle to clear. I also think that, if they did pass, the Governor may be hesitant to sign them because they amend Prop 36 and undermine Prop 57, and in general he vetoes bills that go against the will of the voters.

Please let me know if there is a campaign to oppose these bills that we could be supportive of."
I'm not really sure how it would amend Prop 36....Prop 36 only requires for a third strike to actually be a strike. I have not seen anything in the Assembly or Senate Bills that would take a crime that is currently not a strike and turn it into one other than the concept that certain sex crimes that are currently not strikes by virtue of them being wobblers or misdemeanors may be tried strictly as felonies (and even then, it's late and I'm not sure I understood the language of that part of the Senate Bill right, but after the Stanford rape case there seems to be a movement by the voters, even if not officially on the ballot, toward wanting harsher punishments toward any crime involving a sexual assault, so that's a bill that, if passed, is probably less likely to draw a veto from the Governor.) But still...that would not change Prop 36 other than to potentially increase the crimes that can be applied to it. And the reality is, if you have two strikes already and are accused of a sex crime that classifies as a wobbler, chances are that the DA is going to try to strike you out on it rather than charge it as a misdemeanor anyway unless your first two strikes were ancient history/juvenile strikes/relatively minor and the DA felt that your record didn't warrant a 25-to-life type sentence. (In other words, even if the law changed, it might not really change that much.) I suppose it could be argued, then, that the risk comes at the front end (picking up a first strike that wasn't previously a strike if you could get it sentenced as a misdemeanor,) but Dee's got a strike and basically her attitude is "if you don't want to be sentnced to a second or third strike, then don't do something that will get you sentenced to a second or third strike. You know the consequences. You make the choice."

Anyway, I'm getting ramble, let me look at the AB 29 law....and see, it doesn't even make anything a strict felony that wasn't already a strict felony. Misdemeanors are still on the table. I haven't seen if any specific form of rape or sexual assault was not considered serious and/or violent before but will be now, but it doesn't look like it takes anything that was non-serious and/or non-violent and makes it violent.

Just not sure where the change to Prop 36 occurs under these laws. I don't see it....the only thing I'm seeing is an increase in 667.5(c) crimes and an indication that, at a minimum, the legislature is considering 667.5(c) to be the definition point for violent crimes under 57 (unlike the definition listed under 47 which specifically listed the crimes that would essentially be "super strikes" that prevented eligibility.)
__________________
The Colorblind Moderator (I'm not even going to try to use green down here, I'll embarass myself! LOL!) Currently assisting in all forums and actively monitoring Wives and Girlfriends in Prison and the California forums.

#ByeCDCR #TimesUp #HomeForChristmas
The Following User Says Thank You to missingdee For This Useful Post:
Patrickj (02-18-2017)
  #272  
Old 02-19-2017, 08:26 AM
gvalliant gvalliant is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Costa Mesa, California, USA
Posts: 233
Thanks: 377
Thanked 462 Times in 190 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by missingdee View Post
I'm not really sure how it would amend Prop 36....Prop 36 only requires for a third strike to actually be a strike.
I'll ask her, I think she works in a senators office or something like that.

I thought 36 required a 3rd strike to be a certain category (VO as opposed to some NVO offenses perhaps) for it to be sentenced as a 3rd strike (life). These bills might change some offenses currently ineligible for 3rd strike sentencing and make them eligible for 3rd strike sentencing. That's a legitimate impact to prop 36. I don't know for sure, speculating. That's best guess or explanation I can provide to her comments.

I agree with Mia's comments re voters not understanding what they were voting on. Will of the voters is a phrase politicians like Brown love to use to get their way. Might be more appropriate to say "will of the governor" or "will of the Brown". Point being in her experience Brown is known to veto and not sign bills he doesn't like using that excuse.
  #273  
Old 02-19-2017, 12:55 PM
missingdee's Avatar
missingdee missingdee is online now
She's Home! Moderator

PTO Moderator 

 

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Metro Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 1,856
Thanks: 1,865
Thanked 2,477 Times in 1,077 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gvalliant View Post
I'll ask her, I think she works in a senators office or something like that.

I thought 36 required a 3rd strike to be a certain category (VO as opposed to some NVO offenses perhaps) for it to be sentenced as a 3rd strike (life). These bills might change some offenses currently ineligible for 3rd strike sentencing and make them eligible for 3rd strike sentencing. That's a legitimate impact to prop 36. I don't know for sure, speculating. That's best guess or explanation I can provide to her comments.

I agree with Mia's comments re voters not understanding what they were voting on. Will of the voters is a phrase politicians like Brown love to use to get their way. Might be more appropriate to say "will of the governor" or "will of the Brown". Point being in her experience Brown is known to veto and not sign bills he doesn't like using that excuse.
Prop 36 requires the third strike to be serious or violent, not simply violent. In essence....a strike is a strike is a strike, but if a crime is not a strike, 36 doesn't apply. Assault with a Deadly Weapon is not considered violent, but it is considered serious and if I have two strikes and commit that offense, I will get my 25-to-life.

Here's a refresher on 36
(there has been some dispute about 3 strikes and 36 somehow being invalidated because some argue that 3 strikes is alternative sentencing, ignoring that it's a provision of law enacted by voters, but I digress....)

Quote:
Proposition 36:

-Revises the three strikes law to impose life sentence only when the new felony conviction is "serious or violent."

-Authorizes re-sentencing for offenders currently serving life sentences if their third strike conviction was not serious or violent and if the judge determines that the re-sentence does not pose unreasonable risk to public safety.

-Continues to impose a life sentence penalty if the third strike conviction was for "certain non-serious, non-violent sex or drug offenses or involved firearm possession."

-Maintains the life sentence penalty for felons with "non-serious, non-violent third strike if prior convictions were for rape, murder, or child molestation."

Prior to 36, any felony (including petty theft with priors, thus the "stole a video tape" examples that get thrown around) was eligible to be a third strike.
Reviewing the pending legislation, assuming it passes, I don't see where it has made any of the crimes that were previously not strikes into strikes. All crimes that I saw that may now be classified as violent were previously, at a minimum, classified as serious, and thus subject to 25-to-life for third strike sentencing already. Thus no Prop 36 impact. If someone can point out where I'm wrong, if something's buried in the fine print (these Penal Codes are not always easy reads after all, and made all the more confusing when you're reading a proposition that indicates the strike-outs and so forth,) I'll gladly accept it, but that's the reality, unless a crime that was previously not a strike becomes a strike, then 36 is not impacted. Not all strikes are classified as violent, after all.

So....no, it appears there isn't a Prop 36 impact involved here.

Agreed about voters not understanding what they were voting on. I said the whole time that 57 was potentially opening up Pandora's Box. Mia made the argument that it would impact future sentencing. The issue with future sentencing looks like it may be coming true...
__________________
The Colorblind Moderator (I'm not even going to try to use green down here, I'll embarass myself! LOL!) Currently assisting in all forums and actively monitoring Wives and Girlfriends in Prison and the California forums.

#ByeCDCR #TimesUp #HomeForChristmas
The Following User Says Thank You to missingdee For This Useful Post:
gvalliant (02-20-2017)
  #274  
Old 02-21-2017, 11:27 AM
Mrs.Dutra Mrs.Dutra is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: California USA
Posts: 1
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Will Prop. 57 take effect anytime soon?

Has anyone heard or seen any recent updates on Prop. 57 and early release for CDCR inmates? My husband got 8 years 8 months and was sentenced Jan. 2014 he is level 4 and is a half timer. He was told by his counselor that he is eligible for prop. 57 due to his past prison prior. By the looks of the mysterious regulations of prop. 57 will it ever take effect?
  #275  
Old 02-21-2017, 12:49 PM
miamac's Avatar
miamac miamac is online now
Site Moderator Gone Mad

Staff Superstar Winner PTO Site Moderator 

 

Join Date: May 2013
Location: ORnativeAZresCAtied
Posts: 6,240
Thanks: 8,002
Thanked 9,945 Times in 3,896 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs.Dutra View Post
Has anyone heard or seen any recent updates on Prop. 57 and early release for CDCR inmates? My husband got 8 years 8 months and was sentenced Jan. 2014 he is level 4 and is a half timer. He was told by his counselor that he is eligible for prop. 57 due to his past prison prior. By the looks of the mysterious regulations of prop. 57 will it ever take effect?
Nothing more recent than has been posted here. There is no specific timeline for rollout and keep in mind when asking about "eligibility", there are three distinct parts to 57. Most inmates will see changes in their ability to earn credits, some (though get ready for the fight) will see early parole hearings, and of course the juvenile portion that we don't spend a lot of time in this thread talking about.

The bottom line is if you're asking about credits, they haven't been made official. If you're asking about NVO parole, they haven't solidified the process and there are challenges to who that may apply to waiting to be heard by the Public Safety Committee.
The Following User Says Thank You to miamac For This Useful Post:
Patrickj (02-21-2017)
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Tags
1170, 1170(h), county jail, local prison, prop 57

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 Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Prop 57, Part III, Regulation Implementation (California) gvalliant California Legal Help 229 Today 01:01 PM
PAUL WALLIN: Passing Prop. 47 right move TerriinCA California Prison & Criminal Justice News & Events + 3 Strikes 0 11-26-2014 07:50 AM
Part of Prop 9 Overturned regarding parolees linda5280 California Parole, Probation & Release 0 03-28-2009 06:16 PM
Prop 66 not passing leaves me with a heavy heart lilmama26 California Prison & Criminal Justice News & Events + 3 Strikes 7 11-03-2004 03:30 PM
have you seen this !!!!! prop 66 is passing Tomi Castillo California Prison & Criminal Justice News & Events + 3 Strikes 24 11-03-2004 12:58 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:50 PM.
Copyright © 2001- 2017 Prison Talk Online
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Website Design & Custom vBulletin Skins by: Relivo Media
Message Board Statistics