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
  #426  
Old 03-15-2017, 01:31 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 dwhank View Post
Why is it that prop 57 is not put in place as we all voted on in November? Why are the subtracting and adding to it? I voted yes on what I read in the voter guide and ballot.
I'm not at all asking this to be non-sympathetic....but I need to ask because this seems to be the biggest issue we're having with 57 is that a lot of people don't understand exactly what it does (and seem to not like it when they're told there might be problems with implementing some of it.)

What is it, exactly, that you assumed it would do based on what was in the voter guide?

Note that we have spent months, over two threads, trying to figure out what, if anything, 57 will actually do. We've determined a couple of concrete things (increased parole opportunities for non-violent offenders being the main one) and speculated about others (credits and milestones, with the issue being that some sentences are capped by previously-imposed sentencing laws, and since CDCR does not set sentencing law, their ability to grant credits beyond what sentencing law permits is questionable because no penal codes were changed or eliminated by 57.) So if someone has a set of expectations from the law that they can support based on the language of the law, we'd love to hear those thoughts.

-E
__________________
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 4 Users Say Thank You to missingdee For This Useful Post:
gvalliant (03-15-2017), Sarianna (03-15-2017), Silenus (03-21-2017), SonsMother (03-15-2017)
Sponsored Links
  #427  
Old 03-15-2017, 09:37 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 miamac View Post
(2) Credit Earning: The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall have authority to award credits earned for good behavior and approved rehabilitative or educational achievements.
(b) The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall adopt regulations in furtherance of these provisions, and the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall certify that these regulations protect and enhance public safety.
This seems to be the ambiguous part that people get excited about.

My intention is not to be a downer but to inform.

As to credit earning, the Department has technically always had control over good behavior and milestones. The issue is that they DON'T have the authority to grant the credits outside of how the penal code is written, and because no penal codes were changed and the scope of the authority is not expressly stated, it cannot be assumed that the will of the voters was to actually allow CDCR to supercede existing sentencing law, only that the voters re-affirmed their rights to give credits within the structure of existing law. Violent Offenders, in theory, could now get milestone-type credits that they weren't previously entitled to. Also there's the unwritten but implied reality: the Department also has the authority to NOT award credits. Meaning that the Department was essentially handed a blank check. The voters entrusted CDCR to self-govern, in essence, regarding credits. That means they could also, in theory, refuse to grant any credits beyond actual time served if they chose. Remember, they've been given authority by this proposition to award credits. The flip of that is they also have the authority to NOT award credits.

You're probably thinking that would never happen. And you may be right. But that authority could complicate matters for some inmates who, say, get a 115 and appeal it to the state court. Let's say an inmate permanently loses 180 days due to a serious in-prison offense. The inmate files and exhausts all 602 appeals. Still seeking a remedy, the inmate, in a timely fashion, appeals the violation to an outside court. Before 57, that inmate may have gotten a reversal of that appeal from the court. However, the language of 57 could, in theory, be interpreted to indicate that the court system has no authority to reverse the 115 and even if they did CDCR could still opt to not reinstate the 180 lost days because the Department, not the court, has the ultimate authority to authorize those credits.

(Whoops.)

Here's another issue with how 57 was written.

(A) For purposes of this section only, the full term for the primary offense means the longest term of imprisonment imposed by the court for any offense, excluding the imposition of an enhancement, consecutive sentence, or alternative sentence.

The issue here is that 3 strikes is technically considered an alternative sentence. The issue is this...the language indicates the LONGEST TERM OF IMPRISONMENT. The longest term cannot be an enhancement (prison prior, gang enhancement, etc.) A 3 strikes-related sentence (doubled due to strike prior, 25 years because of a third strike) is not considered an enhancement. Now, some have argued that it is an "alternative sentence" but there are two issues with this claim.
1.) Three strikes was voter-mandated. The will of the voters created a provision of law that stated they wanted people who were repeat offenders convicted of a certain class of crime at least once to have additional punishments imposed. This isn't a court-imposed alternative sentence, it's a sentence multiplier/increaser that reflects the will of the voters of 1994 which remains relevant because the voters have not repealed it and neither the state legislature nor the courts have determined that it is unconstitutional or that it needs to be done away with. Prop 36 modified what a third strike was. But it didn't change the fundamental base of the law. Further, if you count a strike sentance as an "alternative" and there is only the strike charge and the enhancements, is there really any sentence left to consider as actually being serveable under the loosest interpertations of this law? This is why it seems ridiculous to set that standard without clarification of how it fits into current law and rules.
2.) The "longest sentenced term" is usually the primary term, and it's usually designated at the time of a three strikes sentence. The idea that a three strikes sentence is now an "alternative sentence" when it is not clear that the voters intended this due to the ambiguity of the proposition is a reason to believe that there will not be a reduction from 25-to-life for third strikers, not even if they're non-violent. They MIGHT be able to get some milestone credits, but as we've indicated, those are limited and that would be at the discretion of the Department which is authorized to make decisions regarding those credits. Not the voters.

I don't know if a more clear, specific proposition would have passed. But the reality is, as far as clarity goes, 57 left a lot to be desired. I don't expect the emergency regs to go unchallenged if they are what has been posted here. But time will tell.

-E
__________________
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 4 Users Say Thank You to missingdee For This Useful Post:
gvalliant (03-15-2017), qwerty (03-19-2017), Sarianna (03-15-2017), SonsMother (03-15-2017)
  #428  
Old 03-15-2017, 09:39 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
a lot of people don't understand exactly what it does (and seem to not like it when they're told there might be problems with implementing some of it.)

What is it, exactly, that you assumed it would do based on what was in the voter guide?
This problem of voters not understanding what they voted on unfortunately goes both ways.

Yesterday, the Orange County Register editorial page posed the question "What is causing the upticks in crime?" and invited readers to submit thoughts with letters to the editor. I thought oh boy here we go. Sure enough first letter today (I'm copying portions of it):

"it is blatantly obvious that the California voter caused..."
"Most recently, the California Democratic Party contributed $2.1 million to 2016’s Prop. 57, which reclassified many felonies as nonviolent — such as rape of an unconscious person or use of a date rape drug, domestic violence, exploding a destructive device with intent to cause injury and assault with a deadly weapon — thus avoiding the third strike...."

The only thing "blatantly obvious" is the writer has absolutely no idea what he is talking about and was obviously against 57. Regurgitation combined with a mindless misunderstanding of talking points from opponents. I hate that any newspaper would publish this, they must know his statements are factually wrong. How many readers see this bs, believe it, and spread it?

When the written emergency regs hit the street there will be more misunderstanding. This forum does a great job disseminating facts, not fiction. We need to continue doing that, fight fantasy like this letter, and we need to encourage people to continue to participate and understand that it is not over just because they voted "YES".
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to gvalliant For This Useful Post:
miamac (03-15-2017), missingdee (03-15-2017), Monique83 (03-22-2017), Sarianna (03-15-2017), SonsMother (03-15-2017)
  #429  
Old 03-15-2017, 12:11 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 9,946 Times in 3,897 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gvalliant View Post
We need to continue doing that, fight fantasy like this letter, and we need to encourage people to continue to participate and understand that it is not over just because they voted "YES".
Unfortunately, all of those Facebook pages and info sites that were so active before the vote have literally gone dark. So if that was someone's connection to information, it's gone. Of course there are still some (CARES for Youth, for example), but folks need to go out and find the ones actively updating.

It is sad to see the facts twisted in either direction. The interviews after the shooting of the police officer also directly linked 57 as a "threat" when the shooter had zero possibility of being a 57 candidate even if it had been in place at the time of his release.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to miamac For This Useful Post:
missingdee (03-15-2017), Patrickj (03-15-2017), Sarianna (03-15-2017), SonsMother (03-15-2017)
  #430  
Old 03-15-2017, 01:14 PM
SonsMother SonsMother is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: CA
Posts: 159
Thanks: 241
Thanked 123 Times in 60 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by missingdee View Post
I'm not at all asking this to be non-sympathetic....but I need to ask because this seems to be the biggest issue we're having with 57 is that a lot of people don't understand exactly what it does (and seem to not like it when they're told there might be problems with implementing some of it.)

What is it, exactly, that you assumed it would do based on what was in the voter guide?

Note that we have spent months, over two threads, trying to figure out what, if anything, 57 will actually do. We've determined a couple of concrete things (increased parole opportunities for non-violent offenders being the main one) and speculated about others (credits and milestones, with the issue being that some sentences are capped by previously-imposed sentencing laws, and since CDCR does not set sentencing law, their ability to grant credits beyond what sentencing law permits is questionable because no penal codes were changed or eliminated by 57.) So if someone has a set of expectations from the law that they can support based on the language of the law, we'd love to hear those thoughts.

-E
I assumed it would provide VOs good time credits (TBD) and milestone credits. I further assumed that the milestone credits would be retroactive.

I "wondered" if the definition of a VO may be different than 667.5 since it wasn't specifically stated in the proposition. I believe this was done on purpose so that CDCR could define someone as a VO offender even if their charge was not in 667.5.

I "hoped" that a VO with a 667.5 charge could on a case by case basis be reclassified as not a VO. There seems to be some of that going on in regard to housing...I hoped it would go further so that they would be given the opportunity for an early parole review.
  #431  
Old 03-15-2017, 01:34 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
And did you notice that there were huge holes in it?

For the adult portion of it, this was literally all it said:
(1) Parole Consideration: Any person convicted of a nonviolent felony offense and sentenced to state prison shall be eligible for parole consideration after completing the full term for his or her primary offense.
(A) For purposes of this section only, the full term for the primary offense means the longest term of imprisonment imposed by the court for any offense, excluding the imposition of an enhancement, consecutive sentence, or alternative sentence.
(2) Credit Earning: The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall have authority to award credits earned for good behavior and approved rehabilitative or educational achievements.
(b) The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall adopt regulations in furtherance of these provisions, and the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall certify that these regulations protect and enhance public safety.[1]

According to pro-57 campaigns, the ambiguity was intentional because a prop with specifics wouldn't have passed. Well, this one passed. Now it needs to be written.
Yes regulations need to be written , but the public comment time needs to correct also. This is not emergency regulations as the department says they are. The department (CDCR)took the wait and see approach. Prop.57. passed now they want to hurry up and shove new regulations down our throats.
Yet these new regulations a not clearly written. Most of the new regulations really don't say if and when a person is eligible for the board hearings, yet they are wording regulations that these hearings will be on paper only. I don't see where that benefits a person at all paper hearings are just a rubber stamp process.
All of these people were so gun hoe when Prop.57 was being discussed . People spilled out non-truths that were swallowed . They voted for Prop.57. Now CDCR gets to regulate your vote . I for one from the start out didn't like Prop.57.(still don't)
The public has been mislead again on prison reform. Why? Because true prison reform requires more outside support then the public is willing to give. I have experniced what the public thinks of ex-offenders. " They are a piece of crap . They never change. Lock them up and throw the key away".
Until our Legislators in Sacramento, take a real look and do something . Real prison reform is nothing more then election year lip service.
__________________
Be a friend to everyone,never know when you may need their help
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Patrickj For This Useful Post:
miamac (03-15-2017), missingdee (03-15-2017), qwerty (03-19-2017), SonsMother (03-15-2017)
  #432  
Old 03-15-2017, 01:51 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 9,946 Times in 3,897 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrickj View Post
Yes regulations need to be written , but the public comment time needs to correct also. This is not emergency regulations as the department says they are. [...] Most of the new regulations really don't say if and when a person is eligible for the board hearings, yet they are wording regulations that these hearings will be on paper only. I don't see where that benefits a person at all paper hearings are just a rubber stamp process.
I also wondered how they could by-pass what (I thought?) was a required 45 day public comment period.

And you're right, the "parole process" doesn't appear to take on the form that people thought. It sounds as though they'll look at their C-file, make a decision (on what? original charges, time done, discipline record and program participation). That programming aspect hasn't even been made available to many people so how's it supposed to reflect in their file? And where's the part that looks at the individual and their rehabilitated thinking? Isn't that what 57 was all about? That isn't the flood gate of release yes-voters envisioned.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to miamac For This Useful Post:
Patrickj (03-15-2017), SonsMother (03-15-2017), TAlvarado1989 (03-17-2017)
  #433  
Old 03-18-2017, 01:39 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 9,946 Times in 3,897 Posts
Default

See attached image for flyer details.

"Join an in-person meeting to learn about getting our voices heard on the Prop 57 regulations at USC School of Law March 22nd at 7pm."

Click here to register: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/W7PCGKW.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 17218742_1446289858738889_6457358224575369537_o.jpg (83.8 KB, 12 views)
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to miamac For This Useful Post:
qwerty (03-19-2017), SonsMother (03-18-2017)
  #434  
Old 03-19-2017, 12:51 PM
qwerty's Avatar
qwerty qwerty is offline
Holdin' on for dear life
Donation Award 
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: California, USA
Posts: 5,181
Thanks: 292
Thanked 221 Times in 110 Posts
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrickj View Post
Yes regulations need to be written , but the public comment time needs to correct also. This is not emergency regulations as the department says they are. The department (CDCR)took the wait and see approach. Prop.57. passed now they want to hurry up and shove new regulations down our throats.
Yet these new regulations a not clearly written. Most of the new regulations really don't say if and when a person is eligible for the board hearings, yet they are wording regulations that these hearings will be on paper only. I don't see where that benefits a person at all paper hearings are just a rubber stamp process.
All of these people were so gun hoe when Prop.57 was being discussed . People spilled out non-truths that were swallowed . They voted for Prop.57. Now CDCR gets to regulate your vote . I for one from the start out didn't like Prop.57.(still don't)
The public has been mislead again on prison reform. Why? Because true prison reform requires more outside support then the public is willing to give. I have experniced what the public thinks of ex-offenders. " They are a piece of crap . They never change. Lock them up and throw the key away".
Until our Legislators in Sacramento, take a real look and do something . Real prison reform is nothing more then election year lip service.
Hmmm... I very much respect your view, but have another take (as y'all know).

Many people voted for Prop 57 to slow the tide of juveniles being tried as adults. That's an important part that's often overlooked. True, the nonviolent offender part won't affect too many inmates, but for those who it applies to, it offers an earlier chance to parole. No one is guaranteed parole, as we all know -- inmates still have to do the hard work and be truly ready.

Sure, the regulations part was slipped in, but I from all the reliable sources I've heard (including the governor's own proposed budget), the new regs are LIKELY to mean some good things, such as lifers finally being able to earn good time, milestone and after-hours group credits. I know it's far from a done deal, but any part of this is HUGE for many, many of us.

I just attended a Life Support Alliance seminar and besides hearing from many former lifers, we heard from Jennifer Shaffer, head of the Board of Parole Hearings. There have been many good changes to lifer parole rates in the past couple of years and more are in the works.

And of course, our legislature did pass AB109, SB260 and SB261. While not perfect, these bills have changed many lives, including my husband's.

We finally have family visits for lifers. The emergency classifications regs mean many more are off closed custody sooner (includes my man).

Yes, there is much work to do.

I believe there ARE good people out there fighting for what's right whether it's popular or not.

I believe in continuing to fight for change while always keeping hope alive.

OK, I'm off my soapbox.
__________________



Let's give 'em something to talk about!

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to qwerty For This Useful Post:
gvalliant (03-22-2017), Monique83 (03-22-2017), Patrickj (03-19-2017), SonsMother (03-20-2017)
  #435  
Old 03-19-2017, 01:49 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=qwerty;7610548]Hmmm... I very much respect your view, but have another take (as y'all know).



I from all the reliable sources I've heard (including the governor's own proposed budget), the new regs are LIKELY to mean some good things, such as lifers finally being able to earn good time, milestone and after-hours group credits. I know it's far from a done deal, but any part of this is HUGE for many, many of us.


They have to change the Penal Code in order to let lifers earn good time credits towards going to the board. The statues clearly say that anyone doing 15 to life or 25 to life must do the minimum term of 15 years or 25 years. How can CDCR mandate law through the regulations process? According to Section P.C.190(e) Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 2930) of Chapter 7 of Title 1 of Part 3 shall not apply to reduce any minimum term of a sentence imposed pursuant to this section. A person sentenced pursuant to this section shall not be released on parole prior to serving the minimum term of confinement prescribed by this section.
CDCR does not have the authority to change the C.P.C.
__________________
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:
missingdee (03-19-2017), qwerty (03-19-2017)
  #436  
Old 03-19-2017, 03:39 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=Patrickj;7610560]
Quote:
Originally Posted by qwerty View Post
Hmmm... I very much respect your view, but have another take (as y'all know).



I from all the reliable sources I've heard (including the governor's own proposed budget), the new regs are LIKELY to mean some good things, such as lifers finally being able to earn good time, milestone and after-hours group credits. I know it's far from a done deal, but any part of this is HUGE for many, many of us.


They have to change the Penal Code in order to let lifers earn good time credits towards going to the board. The statues clearly say that anyone doing 15 to life or 25 to life must do the minimum term of 15 years or 25 years. How can CDCR mandate law through the regulations process? According to Section P.C.190(e) Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 2930) of Chapter 7 of Title 1 of Part 3 shall not apply to reduce any minimum term of a sentence imposed pursuant to this section. A person sentenced pursuant to this section shall not be released on parole prior to serving the minimum term of confinement prescribed by this section.
CDCR does not have the authority to change the C.P.C.
Exactly why I keep making the point about existing penal code. I don't know every provision off the top of my head, but there is a lot of existing law that is in place that CDCR cannot, as far as I know, go against. As I pointed out, exactly ZERO of this existing law was revised or stricken when 57 was passed. CDCR deciding to just grant credits can very easily be challenged in court and I sense that it will. The only thing we concretely passed in regards to adult offenders is potential early parole for non-violent offenders.

Nobody in this thread is against the idea of lifers or violent offenders or any of those folks earning more credits. What we're trying to point out is that existing law probably prevents it, no matter what some of us who voted "yes" on 57 say. (I voted "no" precisely because I did not feel the proposition covered enough. 57 should have only been about the juvenile portion, not about adult prison reform at all, and even at that, it was very vague as to what kind of reform it was actually bringing.)

The reason the juvenile portion of 57 is not discussed at length here is because that portion is very clear and courts are acting quickly to determine how to handle the few issues that do exist in terms of when/how it applies retroactively.
__________________
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

Last edited by missingdee; 03-19-2017 at 03:42 PM..
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to missingdee For This Useful Post:
Patrickj (03-19-2017), qwerty (03-19-2017), SonsMother (03-20-2017)
  #437  
Old 03-19-2017, 03:49 PM
qwerty's Avatar
qwerty qwerty is offline
Holdin' on for dear life
Donation Award 
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: California, USA
Posts: 5,181
Thanks: 292
Thanked 221 Times in 110 Posts
Default

[quote=Patrickj;7610560]
Quote:
Originally Posted by qwerty View Post
Hmmm... I very much respect your view, but have another take (as y'all know).



I from all the reliable sources I've heard (including the governor's own proposed budget), the new regs are LIKELY to mean some good things, such as lifers finally being able to earn good time, milestone and after-hours group credits. I know it's far from a done deal, but any part of this is HUGE for many, many of us.


They have to change the Penal Code in order to let lifers earn good time credits towards going to the board. The statues clearly say that anyone doing 15 to life or 25 to life must do the minimum term of 15 years or 25 years. How can CDCR mandate law through the regulations process? According to Section P.C.190(e) Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 2930) of Chapter 7 of Title 1 of Part 3 shall not apply to reduce any minimum term of a sentence imposed pursuant to this section. A person sentenced pursuant to this section shall not be released on parole prior to serving the minimum term of confinement prescribed by this section.
CDCR does not have the authority to change the C.P.C.
From what I've heard speaking to attorneys involved in this, the Penal Code will be changed by legislative action but not until the regs are finalized. They also had to change the penal code with AB109, SB260 and SB261.
__________________



Let's give 'em something to talk about!

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to qwerty For This Useful Post:
Patrickj (03-19-2017), SonsMother (03-20-2017)
  #438  
Old 03-19-2017, 04:50 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=qwerty;7610595]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrickj View Post

From what I've heard speaking to attorneys involved in this, the Penal Code will be changed by legislative action but not until the regs are finalized. They also had to change the penal code with AB109, SB260 and SB261.

AB109,SB260,and SB261 were written to change sections in the Penal Code by adding material. Prop.57 did nothing in the Penal Code only changed a section of the California Constitution which is pretty vague.
As of today there is no legislative action going on to change any law pertains to credit earnings or making it easier to get to the board, or to change anything for V.O. If you are doing 80% or 85% you still do that nothing changed so far.
I am not denying what you are saying there is a lot of conversation going on but are legislators are not listen to us. Why? Because it isn't an election year.
Our legislators really don't give a rats ass about our loves one that are in custody. The only time they do something is when the courts step in.
I would love to see more opportunity for people to earn credit learn skills, both life coping skills and trade skills. On the other hand I will not allow an agency like CDCR make it own laws that fit their situation. (they already control our legislators)If we allow this we will go back in time with what little efforts we have achieved in prison reform.
__________________
Be a friend to everyone,never know when you may need their help

Last edited by Patrickj; 03-19-2017 at 05:01 PM..
The Following User Says Thank You to Patrickj For This Useful Post:
qwerty (03-20-2017)
  #439  
Old 03-19-2017, 05:55 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=qwerty;7610595]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrickj View Post

From what I've heard speaking to attorneys involved in this, the Penal Code will be changed by legislative action but not until the regs are finalized. They also had to change the penal code with AB109, SB260 and SB261.
While this is possibly the case, I wouldn't call this a slam dunk.

Consider for a moment the potential ramifications if the penal codes are changed.

There's another statewide election in 2018 . California's been at or near a Democrat supermajority for some time in the state legislature.

Yet there is a fairly powerful and more-popular-than-normal Republican running for state attorney general in 2018: San Bernardino County District Attorney Mike Ramos.

He's smart. He's Republican. He's tough-on-crime. And he knows how to deliver a message efficiently.

Give someone like Ramos the gift of a vague, unclear proposition resulting in an unlikely collaborative effort between CDCR and the state legislature to reduce time actually served by violent offenders and lifers, and suddenly not only is a single statewide office potentially going to the opposition party (which wouldn't be a terrible thing, I actually like Ramos for the most part and have been impressed by the professionalism of attorneys working in his office,) but it gives Republicans a law-and-order platform to change the balance of power in this state.

So you're asking the state legislature to pass laws that are going to potentially endanger their state Senate and state Assembly seats and their political careers...to benefit those that society considers to be "the worst criminals" after passing a vague proposition that seemed to only grant additional parole consideration to non-violent offenders.

Look. I want reform. And I want the increased opportunities. But the way the very proposition that people are hoping will open the door could result in a statewide balance of power that eventually slams that door shut and reverses the prison reform trend in this state. And the last time we did that, we build a couple dozen prisons and watched the prison population skyrocket under Deukmejian and Wilson as they took the first "determinate sentencing" laws that Brown passed during his first administration and ran with 'em. That's the trend that led to all the enhancements we see and Three Strikes and everything else. There is something to be learned from history here. I just hope we haven't forgotten.....
__________________
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:
Patrickj (03-19-2017), qwerty (03-20-2017)
  #440  
Old 03-20-2017, 07:26 AM
qwerty's Avatar
qwerty qwerty is offline
Holdin' on for dear life
Donation Award 
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: California, USA
Posts: 5,181
Thanks: 292
Thanked 221 Times in 110 Posts
Default

[quote=missingdee;7610641]
Quote:
Originally Posted by qwerty View Post
I wouldn't call this a slam dunk.

There is something to be learned from history here. I just hope we haven't forgotten.....
Agreed!
__________________



Let's give 'em something to talk about!

The Following User Says Thank You to qwerty For This Useful Post:
missingdee (03-20-2017)
  #441  
Old 03-20-2017, 10:18 AM
SonsMother SonsMother is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: CA
Posts: 159
Thanks: 241
Thanked 123 Times in 60 Posts
Default

[quote=missingdee;7610641]
Quote:
Originally Posted by qwerty View Post

While this is possibly the case, I wouldn't call this a slam dunk.

Consider for a moment the potential ramifications if the penal codes are changed.

There's another statewide election in 2018 . California's been at or near a Democrat supermajority for some time in the state legislature.

Yet there is a fairly powerful and more-popular-than-normal Republican running for state attorney general in 2018: San Bernardino County District Attorney Mike Ramos.

He's smart. He's Republican. He's tough-on-crime. And he knows how to deliver a message efficiently.

Give someone like Ramos the gift of a vague, unclear proposition resulting in an unlikely collaborative effort between CDCR and the state legislature to reduce time actually served by violent offenders and lifers, and suddenly not only is a single statewide office potentially going to the opposition party (which wouldn't be a terrible thing, I actually like Ramos for the most part and have been impressed by the professionalism of attorneys working in his office,) but it gives Republicans a law-and-order platform to change the balance of power in this state.

So you're asking the state legislature to pass laws that are going to potentially endanger their state Senate and state Assembly seats and their political careers...to benefit those that society considers to be "the worst criminals" after passing a vague proposition that seemed to only grant additional parole consideration to non-violent offenders.

Look. I want reform. And I want the increased opportunities. But the way the very proposition that people are hoping will open the door could result in a statewide balance of power that eventually slams that door shut and reverses the prison reform trend in this state. And the last time we did that, we build a couple dozen prisons and watched the prison population skyrocket under Deukmejian and Wilson as they took the first "determinate sentencing" laws that Brown passed during his first administration and ran with 'em. That's the trend that led to all the enhancements we see and Three Strikes and everything else. There is something to be learned from history here. I just hope we haven't forgotten.....
But what about the feds...it was my assumption that the addition of the NVO early parole hearing in regard to the "base" sentence and milestone and good time credit increases were in response to what the feds suggested (which were the latter). And this was Brown's method to keep the feds from taking over the system which the feds repeatedly threatened. This was one of the selling points for prop 57 that Brown used with the public. He stated that the feds would release even more prisoners if they took over the system....

I may be overly positive but I think there will be some cases where VO offenders will get 20% good time credit and milestone credits...there may be challenges but I believe it will start with a case by case. This will help with the prison roll number as well. And I believe that not all NVO's will get even an early parole hearing if they were actually violent during the offense but plead otherwise and/or were violent since being incarcerated. Again, I think it will be done case by case. I strongly believe this is why it's been left as open-ended as it has. And I strongly believe that the recent change in housing standards are a starting point.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to SonsMother For This Useful Post:
gvalliant (03-20-2017), Patrickj (03-20-2017), qwerty (03-22-2017)
  #442  
Old 03-20-2017, 11:18 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 SonsMother View Post
And this was Brown's method to keep the feds from taking over the system which the feds repeatedly threatened. This was one of the selling points for prop 57 that Brown used with the public. He stated that the feds would release even more prisoners if they took over the system....

I may be overly positive but I think there will be some cases where VO offenders will get 20% good time credit and milestone credits...there may be challenges but I believe it will start with a case by case.
I'm with you. Just recently I saw CDCR numbers showing projected increases in population every year. If I remember correct the report projected to about 2020. We knew federal releases were a concern even with the other propositions and actions they have taken last few years. It seems logical to believe they want to use 57 to control (avoid) fed intervention.

I, like you, hope there will be more than just NVO relief happening or this is going to have minimal impact.

Overly positive is good, what you are hoping for can happen. Posts in this thread tell us other things that have to happen to get there. Additional bills, changes to penal code. Nothing we can vote on, someone in legislature has to do that. So we push for that someone to do it. Many of us knew 57 was lacking when the vote happened. I wish there was as much activism pushing for regulations and changes to law and implementation as there was activism pushing for the vote.

Last edited by gvalliant; 03-20-2017 at 11:20 AM.. Reason: edit quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to gvalliant For This Useful Post:
Patrickj (03-20-2017), qwerty (03-22-2017), SonsMother (03-21-2017), trueblue310 (03-20-2017)
  #443  
Old 03-20-2017, 03:09 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=SonsMother;7610814]
Quote:
Originally Posted by missingdee View Post

But what about the feds...it was my assumption that the addition of the NVO early parole hearing in regard to the "base" sentence and milestone and good time credit increases were in response to what the feds suggested (which were the latter). And this was Brown's method to keep the feds from taking over the system which the feds repeatedly threatened. This was one of the selling points for prop 57 that Brown used with the public. He stated that the feds would release even more prisoners if they took over the system....

I may be overly positive but I think there will be some cases where VO offenders will get 20% good time credit and milestone credits...there may be challenges but I believe it will start with a case by case. This will help with the prison roll number as well. And I believe that not all NVO's will get even an early parole hearing if they were actually violent during the offense but plead otherwise and/or were violent since being incarcerated. Again, I think it will be done case by case. I strongly believe this is why it's been left as open-ended as it has. And I strongly believe that the recent change in housing standards are a starting point.


Again, the issue comes down to the Penal Code.

I believe that reduction to 80% plus milestones would be a good step for VO, and it definitely would have been a great incentive to Dee if this was coming into effect when she went to prison. I believe that giving inmates legitimate hope of getting home and rehabilitating goes a long way. That's why I keep iterating that I am not opposed to reform. I just believe that reform needs to be spelled out and defined.

It is very possible, as has been suggested, that additional legislation will be passed in the State Legislature that changes sentencing/credit laws. My concern is that could give the Republicans some serious "tough on crime" fodder in 2018 and change the trend back to "tough on crime" sentencing approaches.

Of course we were told that this was all happening in 2 or 3 weeks....and beyond the rumors and the conference call, I have not seen anything really concrete that indicates that credits will be expanding, and a lot of penal code hurdles to making it happen.

Once we see the actual emergency regulations we'll know what, if any, challenges remain for implementation and what, if any, steps are being taken to overcome those challenges.

-E
__________________
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 3 Users Say Thank You to missingdee For This Useful Post:
Patrickj (03-20-2017), qwerty (03-22-2017), SonsMother (03-21-2017)
  #444  
Old 03-20-2017, 03:11 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'm with you. Just recently I saw CDCR numbers showing projected increases in population every year. If I remember correct the report projected to about 2020. We knew federal releases were a concern even with the other propositions and actions they have taken last few years. It seems logical to believe they want to use 57 to control (avoid) fed intervention.

I, like you, hope there will be more than just NVO relief happening or this is going to have minimal impact.

Overly positive is good, what you are hoping for can happen. Posts in this thread tell us other things that have to happen to get there. Additional bills, changes to penal code. Nothing we can vote on, someone in legislature has to do that. So we push for that someone to do it. Many of us knew 57 was lacking when the vote happened. I wish there was as much activism pushing for regulations and changes to law and implementation as there was activism pushing for the vote.


True. Activism needs to continue to push through reform. Discussions like the ones we are having here are hopefully helping to shape and propel those reforms. Despite Dee being home I still have a vested interest in seeing 57 do good things for some of the inmates on the womens' side of the aisle.

I am anxious to see if these emergency regulations are, in fact, going to happen.
__________________
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 3 Users Say Thank You to missingdee For This Useful Post:
Patrickj (03-20-2017), qwerty (03-22-2017), SonsMother (03-21-2017)
  #445  
Old 03-22-2017, 12:38 AM
qwerty's Avatar
qwerty qwerty is offline
Holdin' on for dear life
Donation Award 
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: California, USA
Posts: 5,181
Thanks: 292
Thanked 221 Times in 110 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by missingdee View Post
True. Activism needs to continue to push through reform. Discussions like the ones we are having here are hopefully helping to shape and propel those reforms. Despite Dee being home I still have a vested interest in seeing 57 do good things for some of the inmates on the womens' side of the aisle.

I am anxious to see if these emergency regulations are, in fact, going to happen.
Thanks for staying concerned and especially paying attention to the women behind bars, who so often are overlooked when all this policy stuff is worked out. Indeed, we all need to write letters when it comes time for public comment -- or even before. Sent mine last week. And those who are near Sacramento can show up for the hearings.
__________________



Let's give 'em something to talk about!

The Following User Says Thank You to qwerty For This Useful Post:
missingdee (03-22-2017)
  #446  
Old 03-22-2017, 09:37 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

About a month ago there were posts re two assembly bills and one senate bill introduced to amend aspects of PC667.5 - changing certain serious offenses to violent offenses for purposes of sentencing, restricting early parole consideration, enhancements, restrict credit earning to 85% term. In reaction all or in part to prop 57. At the time AB-197, AB-27, and SB-75 were mentioned.

AB-27 has been amended, apparently heard and passed by the Committee on Public Safety. It has moved to Appropriations Committee. Unfortunately making progress. I don't know the process but one more step in the wrong direction. I'm attaching the bill as amended.

One thing that caught my eye is page 8 (Related Legislation). It lists AB 67 (Rodriguez), AB 197 (Kiley), SB 75 (Bates), SB 652 (Nielsen), SB 770 (Glazier) all recently proposed and in legislative process. All designed to add to PC667.5.

So there are now six bills including this one introduced in reaction to Prop 57 - not good developments for sure.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Assembly Bill 27 March 2017.pdf (126.4 KB, 33 views)
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to gvalliant For This Useful Post:
miamac (03-22-2017), oshaye25 (03-26-2017), Patrickj (03-22-2017), qwerty (03-22-2017), SonsMother (03-22-2017)
  #447  
Old 03-22-2017, 10:03 AM
SonsMother SonsMother is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: CA
Posts: 159
Thanks: 241
Thanked 123 Times in 60 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gvalliant View Post
About a month ago there were posts re two assembly bills and one senate bill introduced to amend aspects of PC667.5 - changing certain serious offenses to violent offenses for purposes of sentencing, restricting early parole consideration, enhancements, restrict credit earning to 85% term. In reaction all or in part to prop 57. At the time AB-197, AB-27, and SB-75 were mentioned.

AB-27 has been amended, apparently heard and passed by the Committee on Public Safety. It has moved to Appropriations Committee. Unfortunately making progress. I don't know the process but one more step in the wrong direction. I'm attaching the bill as amended.

One thing that caught my eye is page 8 (Related Legislation). It lists AB 67 (Rodriguez), AB 197 (Kiley), SB 75 (Bates), SB 652 (Nielsen), SB 770 (Glazier) all recently proposed and in legislative process. All designed to add to PC667.5.

So there are now six bills including this one introduced in reaction to Prop 57 - not good developments for sure.
Thanks for posting this. I see redundancy between violent and serious felonies. Great deal of redundancy. Is the difference where there is a redundancy the use of a firearm? So if you don't use a firearm and murder someone you can get 50% good time credit? I'm confused.
  #448  
Old 03-22-2017, 10:38 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 9,946 Times in 3,897 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SonsMother View Post
Is the difference where there is a redundancy the use of a firearm? So if you don't use a firearm and murder someone you can get 50% good time credit? I'm confused.
I'll be honest, I haven't read the newest bills or the amended, but usually when they specifically state the use of a firearm, they are intending to make it clear that it was because there was the use of a firearm that this particular charge is a violent felony.

For example...

If I rob a bank, I might just use a note and a really stern voice. Or, I might walk in with a semi-automatic. Those would be viewed differently under California PC. The proposed bills (to the best of my knowledge) want to cement that the use of a firearm requires a violent felony charge.

Murder is a violent felony regardless of how it was carried out. Gun, knife, cheesecloth. All VO.
The Following User Says Thank You to miamac For This Useful Post:
Patrickj (03-22-2017)
  #449  
Old 03-22-2017, 11:21 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 miamac View Post
I'll be honest, I haven't read the newest bills or the amended, but usually when they specifically state the use of a firearm, they are intending to make it clear that it was because there was the use of a firearm that this particular charge is a violent felony.

For example...

If I rob a bank, I might just use a note and a really stern voice. Or, I might walk in with a semi-automatic. Those would be viewed differently under California PC. The proposed bills (to the best of my knowledge) want to cement that the use of a firearm requires a violent felony charge.

Murder is a violent felony regardless of how it was carried out. Gun, knife, cheesecloth. All VO.
Redundancy SonsMother speaks of has always been there. For example Murder and Kidnapping have always been listed as both Serious and Violent offenses. Redundant and confusing. These new bills don't have anything to do with that.

AB-27 for example changes from serious to violent (667.5) rape of unconscious / intoxicated / use of authority / belief that the person committing the act was someone known to the victim other than the accused (whatever that means).

The other bills listed do similar things to other formerly "only serious" offenses making them into violent offenses under 667.5. That's the problem. Opening the gates of more stiff sentencing and ineligibility for NVO benefit from 57.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to gvalliant For This Useful Post:
miamac (03-22-2017), Patrickj (03-22-2017), SonsMother (03-23-2017)
  #450  
Old 03-22-2017, 11:37 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 9,946 Times in 3,897 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gvalliant View Post
Redundancy SonsMother speaks of has always been there. For example Murder and Kidnapping have always been listed as both Serious and Violent offenses. Redundant and confusing. These new bills don't have anything to do with that.
Ahh, OK. Thank you. That is odd. Seems like they could save a little dough in printing alone if they eliminated the need to make it clear that a violent felony is "serious". I don't mean to be cheeky, but whenever I hear "serious felony", I feel like it's the court system chastising a child from the bench. "Now listen, what you've done is very, very serious. Do you understand?"

And yes, this is stiffer sentencing we discussed (predicted) months before the vote. Sorry to see it coming to fruition.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to miamac For This Useful Post:
gvalliant (03-22-2017), Patrickj (03-22-2017), qwerty (03-22-2017), SonsMother (03-23-2017)
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 03:05 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