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.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
Old 07-19-2018, 04:37 PM
Bamswife6200 Bamswife6200 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Ca, usa
Posts: 13
Thanks: 10
Thanked 8 Times in 6 Posts
Default

Does anyone know of ANY INMATES being released under prop 57? I called CDCR public information and was told a total of 700 were released out of the 3500 that qualified last year.

I have heard of an attorney Charles Carbone who has helped and had some success with prop 57, but of course it cost money.

I'm just wondering becuase the way it was described on the ballot, does not appear to be the way it's being implemented. Parole are denying everyone,mostly based on their past. Which they all have, hence they're in prison
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Bamswife6200 For This Useful Post:
gvalliant (07-19-2018)
Sponsored Links
  #27  
Old 07-19-2018, 06:30 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: 9,917
Thanks: 13,033
Thanked 18,916 Times in 6,822 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bamswife6200 View Post
I have heard of an attorney Charles Carbone who has helped and had some success with prop 57, but of course it cost money.
Short of coaching an inmate and cleaning up their parole packet to present their best self, I have no idea how an attorney could assist an inmate specific to 57. There are courses and inmate mentors that are just as adept at doing this, though, so I guess it's personal choice.

As far as the release numbers, I think the expectations were wayyyy overblown. This was something we discussed prior to implementation. It offers a chance for early parole hearing, not necessarily a parole grant and much less a guarantee. Here on PTO 57 was often referred to as a blank check. If there were 700 (or 100 or 10) that have successfully paroled under 57, then proponents call that a victory.


I think what some folks didn't factor in is that 57 was an attempt to give direction and have inmates meet rehab benchmarks. If the inmate had not already been doing that for years prior to 57, an early hearing based on the vision of 57 was almost a sure denial.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to miamac For This Useful Post:
Bamswife6200 (07-27-2018), gvalliant (07-19-2018)
  #28  
Old 07-19-2018, 09:24 PM
gvalliant gvalliant is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Costa Mesa, California, USA
Posts: 587
Thanks: 1,064
Thanked 1,196 Times in 491 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bamswife6200 View Post
Does anyone know of ANY INMATES being released under prop 57? I called CDCR public information and was told a total of 700 were released out of the 3500 that qualified last year.

I have heard of an attorney Charles Carbone who has helped and had some success with prop 57, but of course it cost money.

I'm just wondering becuase the way it was described on the ballot, does not appear to be the way it's being implemented. Parole are denying everyone,mostly based on their past. Which they all have, hence they're in prison
I think you are referring to the non-violent early parole provision. The number you have provided from CDCR is about the first statistic I've heard. Not that I trust CDCR but I'll go with what you learned given I haven't heard anything else. The problem with early parole provision, as Miamac points out, is it only provides opportunity for parole consideration. CDCR decides on parole or no parole. Decision is a paper based subjective process, might not be applied consistently, and almost any negative on an inmates record will lead to denial.

I have heard of inmates being released earlier than they would have based on extra credit earning provision under prop 57. Earning credits is more defined, less subjective and not prone to the whims of CDCR parole board. But credit earning under 57 offers much less potential relief than early parole.

Your inference is right IMO. 57 has provided some help, but does not deliver the way it was sold.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to gvalliant For This Useful Post:
Bamswife6200 (07-27-2018), miamac (07-19-2018), Sarianna (07-20-2018)
  #29  
Old 07-27-2018, 09:28 PM
Bamswife6200 Bamswife6200 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Ca, usa
Posts: 13
Thanks: 10
Thanked 8 Times in 6 Posts
Default

Thank you, I have heard of inmates being apply to file a habeas corpus on behalf of being denied prop 57. Hopefully it would provide some inmates relief, especially those who have had their sentences double and enhancements added unnecessarily. Hopefully there is some relief.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Bamswife6200 For This Useful Post:
Patrickj (08-12-2018)
  #30  
Old 08-11-2018, 11:02 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: 9,917
Thanks: 13,033
Thanked 18,916 Times in 6,822 Posts
Default

I found this funny, so I'm throwing it up here.

From a proposed change to Title 15:
Also, CDCR proposes to amend California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 3371.1, entitled “Computation of Term and Credit,” by revising portions of the existing text that are no longer relevant following adoption of the new Good Conduct Credit scheme on May 1, 2017, and by adding provisions that are necessary given the complexity of calculating an inmate’s term of incarceration under California’s sentencing laws. This complexity is further exacerbated by numerous appellate and Supreme Court decisions that have been published over the years that further refine and interpret California’s sentencing statutes.
California’s sentencing laws make credit application and calculation of an inmate’s term a complicated process. These proposed regulations will assist department staff who perform credit and term calculations by ensuring that they have a common understanding of key words and phrases and by providing more transparency to inmates and members of the public who seek to understand credit and sentence calculations. Finally, these regulations capture relevant rulings from several court cases regarding the computation of terms and credit. By including these important court decisions here the department can better ensure they will be applied consistently and uniformly.



First-- this is CDC actually saying that it's the sentencing laws that have complicated their authority to determine sentence length.
Second-- it's so unclear and so complicated that a proposition passed two years ago is still being clarified so it can be applied uniformly. God help all of us lost in transition (signed, the wife of an inmate two years+ past EPRD with no hearing in sight).

Anyone interested in wading through this with a highlighter and responding should know the public commentary period closes Aug 24th at 5pm with a public hearing the same day from 10-11am in Sacramento.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to miamac For This Useful Post:
Bamswife6200 (08-12-2018), gvalliant (08-13-2018), Patrickj (08-12-2018), sidewalker (08-12-2018)
  #31  
Old 08-12-2018, 11:35 AM
Patrickj's Avatar
Patrickj Patrickj is offline
Moderator

PTO Moderator 

 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atwater CA. USA.
Posts: 2,565
Thanks: 2,170
Thanked 2,251 Times in 1,011 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bamswife6200 View Post
Thank you, I have heard of inmates being apply to file a habeas corpus on behalf of being denied prop 57. Hopefully it would provide some inmates relief, especially those who have had their sentences double and enhancements added unnecessarily. Hopefully there is some relief.

Of the habeas case(s) that I .am aware of in both State and Federal Court
is Vaught G054657 4th Appellate District Division 3. You can go to the 4th Appellate District Division 3 Here
Do a case search then pull up docket and find the current information on Mr. Vaught's matter. Now Mr. Vaught, has filed many other matters in the courts also. None of which have benefited him yet.
__________________
Be a friend to everyone,never know when you may need their help
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Patrickj For This Useful Post:
Bamswife6200 (08-12-2018), gvalliant (08-13-2018)
  #32  
Old 08-12-2018, 11:42 AM
Patrickj's Avatar
Patrickj Patrickj is offline
Moderator

PTO Moderator 

 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atwater CA. USA.
Posts: 2,565
Thanks: 2,170
Thanked 2,251 Times in 1,011 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miamac View Post
I found this funny, so I'm throwing it up here.

From a proposed change to Title 15:
Also, CDCR proposes to amend California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 3371.1, entitled “Computation of Term and Credit,” by revising portions of the existing text that are no longer relevant following adoption of the new Good Conduct Credit scheme on May 1, 2017, and by adding provisions that are necessary given the complexity of calculating an inmate’s term of incarceration under California’s sentencing laws. This complexity is further exacerbated by numerous appellate and Supreme Court decisions that have been published over the years that further refine and interpret California’s sentencing statutes.
California’s sentencing laws make credit application and calculation of an inmate’s term a complicated process. These proposed regulations will assist department staff who perform credit and term calculations by ensuring that they have a common understanding of key words and phrases and by providing more transparency to inmates and members of the public who seek to understand credit and sentence calculations. Finally, these regulations capture relevant rulings from several court cases regarding the computation of terms and credit. By including these important court decisions here the department can better ensure they will be applied consistently and uniformly.



First-- this is CDC actually saying that it's the sentencing laws that have complicated their authority to determine sentence length.
Second-- it's so unclear and so complicated that a proposition passed two years ago is still being clarified so it can be applied uniformly. God help all of us lost in transition (signed, the wife of an inmate two years+ past EPRD with no hearing in sight).

Anyone interested in wading through this with a highlighter and responding should know the public commentary period closes Aug 24th at 5pm with a public hearing the same day from 10-11am in Sacramento.

We all know why these sentencing laws and credits that apply to Prop. 57 are so hard to understand. CDCR has written them so that you can not make heads or tails of them. All of the said changes are department policy.
Well I have been trying to figure out CDCR policy and procedure for over 20 years. I still don't know WTF or How to apply some CDCRs other policies and procedures. it is jus a big cluster f*** getting bigger
__________________
Be a friend to everyone,never know when you may need their help
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Patrickj For This Useful Post:
gvalliant (08-13-2018), miamac (08-12-2018)
  #33  
Old 08-12-2018, 08:08 PM
Bamswife6200 Bamswife6200 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Ca, usa
Posts: 13
Thanks: 10
Thanked 8 Times in 6 Posts
Default

So what exactly does this mean? Like Patrickj said, CDCR termonogly in so difficult to understand and they can barely explain it. It's almost like they're using a different math system, when my husband was sentenced and given so much credit the calculations if his EPRD was far greater than what we figured. 33% was obviously not how any normal person calculates 33%.

So does this mean they are going to recalculate pre-existing sentences, to ensure that inmates are receiving correct EPRD?
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bamswife6200 For This Useful Post:
gvalliant (08-13-2018), Patrickj (08-13-2018)
  #34  
Old 08-13-2018, 09:13 AM
Patrickj's Avatar
Patrickj Patrickj is offline
Moderator

PTO Moderator 

 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atwater CA. USA.
Posts: 2,565
Thanks: 2,170
Thanked 2,251 Times in 1,011 Posts
Default

I am on a wait and see now with CDCR and their new policies and procedures
as far as Prop.57 goes. When CDCR gets everything in writing and approved by the OAL. Then I will sit down and read for several hours. Read what CDCR is trying to say what their new policies are on credit earning and how they will or will not be applied. I expect that I will be doing a lot of emailing, and being on the phone to litigation. In return I will be getting a ton of unnecessary snail mail also. It may take me another full year to fully understand how Prop.57 and credit earning under Prop. 57. I will learn and be taught by the department that generated all of this unclear writing of policy and procedure
Hopefully some of my other friends and family here at PTO will also help me along as we learn these new regulations together.
__________________
Be a friend to everyone,never know when you may need their help
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Patrickj For This Useful Post:
gvalliant (08-13-2018), miamac (08-13-2018), Sarianna (08-14-2018)
  #35  
Old 08-13-2018, 09:43 AM
gvalliant gvalliant is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Costa Mesa, California, USA
Posts: 587
Thanks: 1,064
Thanked 1,196 Times in 491 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miamac View Post
First-- this is CDC actually saying that it's the sentencing laws that have complicated their authority to determine sentence length.
Second-- it's so unclear and so complicated that a proposition passed two years ago is still being clarified so it can be applied uniformly. God help all of us lost in transition (signed, the wife of an inmate two years+ past EPRD with no hearing in sight).

Anyone interested in wading through this with a highlighter and responding should know the public commentary period closes Aug 24th at 5pm with a public hearing the same day from 10-11am in Sacramento.
I tried. Sigh...

Even if I took time to really understand what they are doing here it's not worth the effort. This is what happens when you have an organization that doesn't know what they are doing (government / CDCR) design a system to create change and motivate behavior. That's what 57 is - a giant incentive / control system. Many, many years ago I got my MBA and I recall numerous courses and cases and studies on management control systems which so often fail to deliver on goals for many reasons and worse, motivate / create undesired behavior. Common problems:

- too complicated to understand, no one knows what to do and give up
- people find ways to game it and do things that benefit them, but harm the organization and goals. Critics lament after the fact "unintended consequences". Truth is completely predictable results of a poorly thought out system.
- individual goals are too difficult to achieve and unrealistic expectations are created. Sell one $1000 vacuum cleaner per day door to door at 50% commission and earn over $150,000 per year right? Realistically could only sell one per month or one per year so everyone gives up and everyone loses

CDCR created a monster that spent significant $ and effort from the public and the government to create. For many reasons it's already a failure. Changing little behavior from very few inmates and I sense many people are already giving up, filing lawsuits, other activities that I sure as hell hope weren't the goals. But they are results of 57.

It's lasting accomplishment has been to provide power and control to CDCR.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to gvalliant For This Useful Post:
Bamswife6200 (09-03-2018), miamac (08-13-2018), Patrickj (08-13-2018), Sarianna (08-14-2018)
  #36  
Old 08-13-2018, 12:01 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: 9,917
Thanks: 13,033
Thanked 18,916 Times in 6,822 Posts
Default

gvalliant, yes to everything you said.



As for how this will change things? Who knows. A year ago I would have ventured a guess. But this monstrosity has morphed so many times over the course of its inception, that it's honestly a waste of my time to try. When the new regs are implemented and published, we can parse them out and see how, or if, they will change anything for our loved ones.

Again, I mean no disrespect to those who worked so hard to fight for change. But this is a huge mess and a mistake. Now we have to make the most of it by trial, patience and constant adaptation.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to miamac For This Useful Post:
Bamswife6200 (09-03-2018), gvalliant (08-15-2018), Patrickj (08-13-2018), Sarianna (08-14-2018)
  #37  
Old 09-03-2018, 09:53 AM
Bamswife6200 Bamswife6200 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Ca, usa
Posts: 13
Thanks: 10
Thanked 8 Times in 6 Posts
Default

What if we write the authors of this bill and request a revision or amendment to it? It's truly frustrating, that nothing is being done with prop 57. After speaking to an analyst at parole board for prop 57, it was explained that they are basically looking for inmates with less than 2 years on their sentence to release. It doesnt matter if they've served their base term or not, what milestones they've completed. Also NVSS is now eliminated since prop 57 is in full effect. NVSS was a parole hearing for non violent second striker who once they served 50% of their time was eligible for parole. Now everything is left up to prop 57, no commiitte, just a review of an inmates entire file, read by one person. An inmate can not give reasons or explanations for some things in his/her file with this process.

Last edited by Bamswife6200; 09-03-2018 at 10:12 AM..
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Bamswife6200 For This Useful Post:
gvalliant (09-03-2018)
  #38  
Old 09-03-2018, 02:37 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: 9,917
Thanks: 13,033
Thanked 18,916 Times in 6,822 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bamswife6200 View Post
What if we write the authors of this bill and request a revision or amendment to it? [...]Now everything is left up to prop 57, no commiitte, just a review of an inmates entire file, read by one person. An inmate can not give reasons or explanations for some things in his/her file with this process.
The public commentary period is over and the bill went through a few revisions before being locked down. At this point, I don't know what the options are for amendments.

The NVO parole review does allow for an inmate to review their file and present materials to mitigate items in that file. NVOs should be informed (I forget the timeline, anyone know?) before they're reviewed and they can request to see their file with a counselor. The only things they won't see are the confidential reports, which no inmate is permitted to view.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to miamac For This Useful Post:
gvalliant (09-03-2018), Sarianna (09-04-2018)
  #39  
Old 09-03-2018, 07:43 PM
gvalliant gvalliant is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Costa Mesa, California, USA
Posts: 587
Thanks: 1,064
Thanked 1,196 Times in 491 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bamswife6200 View Post
What if we write the authors of this bill and request a revision or amendment to it?
Mia covered the essence of what's left which is not much now that public comment period is over. I agree.

I would add that your question "would" be a good one. If prop 57 were a bill but it is not. It was a proposition the public voted and approved. That makes a difference. New credit provisions and early parole portion of the proposition (written by Gov Brown's office more or less) was about 2 paragraphs. It said (paraphrasing) CDCR will write rules surrounding said credits and parole. Voters said yes.

The rules were about 50 pages and CDCR was the "author" of that, therefore the only one to write to about revisions / amendments is CDCR. That was the public comment period. Many participated in public comment. CDCR listened but made no change based on what public (we) asked. They did respond with documents explaining why they thought our ideas would not work.

The only avenue left is lawsuits arguing CDCR did not follow the 2 or so paragraphs the public voted on in their rule / regulation writing. There are lawsuits, I'm not aware of specifics of all. I'm pretty sure one centers on exclusion of sex offenders in early parole consideration. Might be more, I'm not sure.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to gvalliant For This Useful Post:
Sarianna (09-04-2018)
  #40  
Old 09-04-2018, 04:06 PM
Bamswife6200 Bamswife6200 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Ca, usa
Posts: 13
Thanks: 10
Thanked 8 Times in 6 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gvalliant View Post
Mia covered the essence of what's left which is not much now that public comment period is over. I agree.

I would add that your question "would" be a good one. If prop 57 were a bill but it is not. It was a proposition the public voted and approved. That makes a difference. New credit provisions and early parole portion of the proposition (written by Gov Brown's office more or less) was about 2 paragraphs. It said (paraphrasing) CDCR will write rules surrounding said credits and parole. Voters said yes.

The rules were about 50 pages and CDCR was the "author" of that, therefore the only one to write to about revisions / amendments is CDCR. That was the public comment period. Many participated in public comment. CDCR listened but made no change based on what public (we) asked. They did respond with documents explaining why they thought our ideas would not work.

The only avenue left is lawsuits arguing CDCR did not follow the 2 or so paragraphs the public voted on in their rule / regulation writing. There are lawsuits, I'm not aware of specifics of all. I'm pretty sure one centers on exclusion of sex offenders in early parole consideration. Might be more, I'm not sure.

Thank you if you have any information on lawsuits regarding prop 57, please let me know. I am very interested and pursuing that Ave. My husband is not a sex offender, however I did vote for prop 57 assuming it would benefit those with enhancements on no violent crimes and it has failed to do so.
Reply With Quote
Reply

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 III, Regulation Implementation (California) gvalliant CDCR - What You Need to Know 1161 05-03-2018 12:34 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
The final phase is over... LauraAK Michigan Parole, Probation, Halfway Houses, Employment, etc. 5 06-30-2009 08:47 AM
Part of Prop 9 Overturned regarding parolees linda5280 California Parole, Probation & Release 0 03-28-2009 06:16 PM
The Final Phase!!!! Atleast I Hope It Is SASSIE21898 Georgia Prison & Jail – Visitation, Phones, Packages & Mail 4 01-11-2005 09:30 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:42 PM.
Copyright © 2001- 2017 Prison Talk Online
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Website Design & Custom vBulletin Skins by: Relivo Media
Message Board Statistics