Prop 57, Part III, Regulation Implementation (California)

[The Rock]

My LO has been asking me if information he got from a friend is correct.

My LO is going to have his annual review mid next month where he will drop from level 3 to level 2 and he was told that when that happen his time will be recalculated at 66%. He is doing a 50% non violent felony (4 1/2 years), will this mean that he will do 3 years.

I would really appreciated your replays, please help out.

Thanks

[jilkenma]

I just read on Facebook that someone’s loved one was denied for early parole under Prop 57 because all decisions had been put on hold effective 3/20/18. The reason given was that the language is not clear as to what is classified as a violent felony. They said their loved one was given an automatic denial and was told he’d have to wait another year for review. Apparently, his scheduled date was 3/21/18.

Another person posted this court decision thinking this may have something to do with the suspension of decisions.




https://www.laadda.com/wp-content/up...8-Feb-2018.pdf

[miamac]

Originally Posted by The Rock

My LO is going to have his annual review mid next month where he will drop from level 3 to level 2 and he was told that when that happen his time will be recalculated at 66%. He is doing a 50% non violent felony (4 1/2 years), will this mean that he will do 3 years.

Your percentage doesn't change when you drop levels.

[miamac]

Originally Posted by jilkenma

I just read on Facebook that someone’s loved one was denied for early parole under Prop 57 because all decisions had been put on hold effective 3/20/18.

https://www.laadda.com/wp-content/up...8-Feb-2018.pdf

from the conclusion:
Because Petitioners fail to convince there is only one way to define the term “nonviolent felony offense,” the court remands this case to CDCR to define that term in the first instance, consistent with this ruling.

So basically the courts have said that CDCR did not adequately define non-violent, but returns the task to CDCR to do so? I haven't heard anything about it but I'll look and see what I can find or hear from other sources. Thanks for the heads-up!

Edit: so according to this article, CDCR is being forced to amend the paragraphs referring to 'non-violent offenders' and specifically define who is and isn't included. With the power given to CDCR by 57, they could go either way. Gov. Brown assured voters it was not to include registerable sex offenders, suit claims yes voters believed it did. The Court is leaving it up to CDCR to decide. In light of this, I can see CDCR suspending hearings for sex offenders that fall under this category. As for all non-violent offenses, it's unclear. There is no memo release on the CDCR Prop 57 page that speaks on this.

Bear in mind that if CDCR writes into policy that these offenses are considered non-violent and therefore do qualify, there is an act collecting sigs now in order to change that. According to the LSA it is well organized, heavily funded and supported by LEO and DA groups. You can read about that here. If CDCR does not amend the prop to exclude these offenses, this round of legislation is prepared to take it back to the mat.

[Patrickj]

Originally Posted by miamac

from the conclusion:
Because Petitioners fail to convince there is only one way to define the term “nonviolent felony offense,” the court remands this case to CDCR to define that term in the first instance, consistent with this ruling.

So basically the courts have said that CDCR did not adequately define non-violent, but returns the task to CDCR to do so? I haven't heard anything about it but I'll look and see what I can find or hear from other sources. Thanks for the heads-up!

Edit: so according to this article, CDCR is being forced to amend the paragraphs referring to 'non-violent offenders' and specifically define who is and isn't included. With the power given to CDCR by 57, they could go either way. Gov. Brown assured voters it was not to include registerable sex offenders, suit claims yes voters believed it did. The Court is leaving it up to CDCR to decide. In light of this, I can see CDCR suspending hearings for sex offenders that fall under this category. As for all non-violent offenses, it's unclear. There is no memo release on the CDCR Prop 57 page that speaks on this.

Bear in mind that if CDCR writes into policy that these offenses are considered non-violent and therefore do qualify, there is an act collecting sigs now in order to change that. According to the LSA it is well organized, heavily funded and supported by LEO and DA groups. You can read about that here. If CDCR does not amend the prop to exclude these offenses, this round of legislation is prepared to take it back to the mat.

Please correct me if I am wrong but doesn't all this stem from The Writ of Mandate from Sacramento County decision on 3/5/2018 ?
https://www.dropbox.com/preview/CA-P...March-2018.pdf( this is my dropbox link feel free to open it)

Here is another article on Prop.57California’s Prop 57 Sex Offender Release Regs Are Void, Court Rules
This may be old crap to some.

While I am handing out links here is something that came out today from Prison Law
INFORMATION ON PROPOSITION 57
(Updated March 9, 2018)
NEW PRISON CREDIT RULES
and NONVIOLENT OFFENDER PAROLE CONSIDERATION I haven't finished reading it yet , so I don't have a opinion on any of the information from Prison law

[miamac]

Originally Posted by Patrickj

Please correct me if I am wrong but doesn't all this stem from The Writ of Mandate from Sacramento County decision on 3/5/2018 ?
https://www.dropbox.com/preview/CA-P...March-2018.pdf( this is my dropbox link feel free to open it)

I couldn't open, I think it's an issue with my own access to Dropbox. But if it's dated 3/5, the linked Supreme Court document below was Feb 9th, so that seems like an appropriate time for a response to the court decision.

While I am handing out links here is something that came out today from Prison Law
INFORMATION ON PROPOSITION 57
(Updated March 9, 2018)
NEW PRISON CREDIT RULES
and NONVIOLENT OFFENDER PAROLE CONSIDERATION I haven't finished reading it yet , so I don't have a opinion on any of the information from Prison law

Reading the last link which was updated March 9, the exclusion of sex offenses under 209 still stand. So if this is the case, then CDCR....hasn't changed the language to explicitly state what constitutes non-violent? I'm confused. It still says:

On March 5, 2018, the court issued an order stating that the CDCR’s regulations violate Proposition 57 because the voters did not intend for all sex crimes to be labeled as violent or for all people with sex offenses to be ineligible for parole consideration. The court ordered the CDCR to revise its regulations, but stated that the CDCR has broad authority define which sex offenses are violent. The court’s order is not yet final
-- the state may appeal the order and may ask for the order to be stayed (not in effect) during the appeal. It's also unknown what any revised CDCR regulations would say.

[Patrickj]

Originally Posted by miamac

Reading the last link which was updated March 9, the exclusion of sex offenses under 209 still stand. So if this is the case, then CDCR....hasn't changed the language to explicitly state what constitutes non-violent? I'm confused. It still says:

On March 5, 2018, the court issued an order stating that the CDCR’s regulations violate Proposition 57 because the voters did not intend for all sex crimes to be labeled as violent or for all people with sex offenses to be ineligible for parole consideration. The court ordered the CDCR to revise its regulations, but stated that the CDCR has broad authority define which sex offenses are violent. The court’s order is not yet final
-- the state may appeal the order and may ask for the order to be stayed (not in effect) during the appeal. It's also unknown what any revised CDCR regulations would say.

The March 5th date is the one that I drop boxed since it didn't work I will just attach the decision.
Lets go back to how Prop.57 was sold to us. Wasn't only non-violent offenders would benefit from this Prop. I understand what the 288 289 are crying about they were straight excluded from this Prop all together even though some of the said offense of not defined as violent It was clearly written in the Pop. that sex offenders would not be considered. Excluding a group because of their offense could nullify the whole Prop. since one group is being excluded because of their offense not if it is violent or non-violent offense. Which in reality singles out a certain group of offender even though their offense may not be defined violent.
This is where legislation is going to have to be re written to make this prop. fair to all groups not excluding a person because of how their crime is defined instead of if it is violent or non violent. Time for me to be quiet my pain meds just kicked in and nothing is registering clearly now

[miamac]

Originally Posted by Patrickj

The March 5th date is the one that I drop boxed since it didn't work I will just attach the decision.

Ok, I read through it.

First, the court is rather disgruntled over the ambiguity of language in the prop. We've beaten that horse to death about 40 times here so I'll skip it.

Second, the court isn't thrilled that CDCR went rogue with their interpretation of "non-violent" offenses. In defense of CDCR, that could have been easily remedied in the original language of the prop as presented to voters, but proponents touted ambiguity as its selling point. So here we are. The court is ordering CDCR to apply 57 as 'voters intended' and herein lies the problem:

The language of the prop asserts that the most "violent" offenders would be kept off the streets while non-violent offenders would have a shot at earlier parole. Because non-violent is not adequately defined anywhere (save to say it's not a 667.5 crime), CDCR took broad discretion in application (which voters did allow, however, the court says it went farther than voters intended). CDCR excluded violent offenses as defined by 667.5 AND those crimes under 290 which require registration. But their error in including crimes under 290 came about because they used recidivism rates to justify their exclusion and not the definition of "violent". Voters did not consider recidivism, therefor CDCR was not to make it a consideration in refining the details of 57.

Opposition to 57 claimed that there are many crimes not listed under 667.5 that are considered violent acts by the general public and by the inherent definition of violent (rape of an intoxicated person, for example). They uphold CDCRs exclusion and intend to bring this forward as a legislative issue with an act called Reducing Crime and Keeping California Safe of 2018*** if CDCR removes the exclusion of 290 crimes. This would remove CDCRs discretion and 290 crimes would then be legally deemed violent offenses and excluded from non-violent parole process.

Still with me?

So in other words, this all stems from the lack of exacting language when the prop was presented to voters. The very real threat that is looming with the act linked above is that it not only forces 290 crimes into the violent offender category, but tags DNA collection and parole reform with it.

So we wait to see how CDCR responds.

If you want to follow news on the act linked above, click here.