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

Go Back   Prison Talk > U.S. REGIONAL FORUMS > CALIFORNIA > California Prison & Criminal Justice News & Events + 3 Strikes
Register Entertainment FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read

California Prison & Criminal Justice News & Events + 3 Strikes Do you have news relating to California's Prison or Ciminal Justice System and related efforts? Post them here! Also discuss 3 Strike laws.

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-01-2019, 03:22 PM
Patrickj's Avatar
Patrickj Patrickj is offline

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atwater CA. USA.
Posts: 2,759
Thanks: 2,597
Thanked 2,727 Times in 1,185 Posts
Thumbs up New Prop.57 ruling from the court


The petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted. CDCR is directed to treat as void and repeal California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 3490, subdivision (a)(5) and to thereafter make further changes as necessary to ensure its Proposition 57 implementing regulations are consistent with this opinion. Mohammad shall be evaluated for early parole consideration within 60 days of remittitur issuance

Another mishandling by CDCR of there new policy pertaining to parole hearing consideration
Be a friend to everyone,never know when you may need their help

Last edited by Patrickj; 12-01-2019 at 03:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Patrickj For This Useful Post:
gvalliant (12-02-2019), SD.Dori (07-29-2020)
Sponsored Links
Old 12-01-2019, 03:38 PM
studebaker71 studebaker71 is online now
Registered User
Donation Award 

Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: california
Posts: 641
Thanks: 347
Thanked 686 Times in 373 Posts

What does this mean?
Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2019, 10:14 PM
gvalliant gvalliant is offline
Registered User
Donation Award 

Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: California
Posts: 873
Thanks: 1,608
Thanked 1,692 Times in 720 Posts

3490 (a)(5) and (6) reads:

(5) The inmate is currently serving a term of incarceration for a “violent felony;” or
(6) The inmate is currently serving a term of incarceration for a nonviolent felony offense after completing a concurrent determinate term for a “violent felony.”

This case seems to be a guy with a violent offense and consecutive non-violent (I think...gotta read a little more). I believe his argument is "I served the violent portion (second degree robbery), now I'm serving non-violent portion (receiving stolen property. Violent portion is finished so I am no longer a violent offender and now a non-violent offender and should get early parole consideration under 57".

I think we talked about that tangled scenario back in the day when 57 was being debated. Anyway, CDCR says in their title 15 regs nope you're a violent offender and don't get consideration. Appeals court says wrong, your non-violent. CDCR, please give him consideration and rewrite that section of Title 15 accordingly.

Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to gvalliant For This Useful Post:
Patrickj (12-02-2019)
Old 12-02-2019, 10:02 AM
gvalliant gvalliant is offline
Registered User
Donation Award 

Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: California
Posts: 873
Thanks: 1,608
Thanked 1,692 Times in 720 Posts

I read this a few more times. It is unique.

Defendant had multiple felony convictions - 6 counts of receiving stolen property (non-violent under CA law), 6 counts of 2nd degree robbery (violent under CA law). When sentenced back in 2012, court defined one of the non-violent stolen property charges as his "principal term" - 3 years. Everything else piled on to be served consecutive. All added up to a 29 year sentence.

Now that his "principal term" was served, he files for relief under prop 57 non-violent parole consideration. Even though he has 6 violent felony convictions. CDCR language under 3490 (a)(5) and (a)(6) define him as violent for prop 57 early parole consideration. CDCR denies him all the way and his case eventually gets to the 2nd/5th district appeals court. The voter initiative defines him as non-violent since his "primary term" is non-violent. That's the plain language and that's what the court went with. Court even concedes maybe the voters often don't read and don't understand what they are voting on (I could not agree more), that is what the language says.

Two things I find striking:

1) He has no enhancements. Just a lot of consecutive sentences. Court says you are eligible under a sentencing of multiple consecutive sentences so long as the primary is non-violent. Don't need an "enhancement" to get consideration. A non-violent primary plus anything else and you are good for consideration.

2) Assume someone else who had identical or even less mix of violent and non-violent convictions and the court also sentences all consecutive. But the court assesses one of the violent offenses as the primary. This unlucky person is NOT prop 57 eligible. Probably many have even lesser situations but....primary charge is violent. They serve their full time; 29 years or whatever. This guy is just LUCKY that the court made one of his non-violent offenses the "primary" and is parole eligible after 3 years...

I know attorney Michael Satris who was assigned to this case and he is experienced dealing with parole board. He did a good job.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to gvalliant For This Useful Post:
Patrickj (12-02-2019), SD.Dori (07-29-2020)
Old 07-13-2020, 08:58 PM
Freedomforbro Freedomforbro is offline
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: California USA
Posts: 1
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

Seems like this defendant’s lawyer knew what he was doing when he had his charges set up. I believe he had Mark Garagos. I also believe the reason he does qualify was because he has gang enhancements attached to his charges.
Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2020, 10:54 PM
frees frees is offline
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: ...
Posts: 76
Thanks: 19
Thanked 18 Times in 14 Posts

Appeal court pulls through....so much damage...The courts take forever, and it really should not.

America just ain't it!
Reply With Quote


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
Federal Court ruling on CA's Prop 8 LeBeau LGBTQ+ People in Prison 0 08-14-2010 10:58 AM
Next Court Date for retroactive Prop 83 mama4ry Prison Legislation & Laws 4 09-17-2008 06:32 PM
Prop. 36 & Drug Court BigBurtChino California General Prison Talk 12 07-12-2008 01:56 PM
How do we get back in court after the Sup. Court new ruling? YOUNGnGIFTED Federal General Prison Talk, Introductions & Chit Chat 0 03-08-2005 01:58 PM

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:53 AM.
Copyright © 2001- 2019 Prison Talk Online
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Website Design & Custom vBulletin Skins by: Relivo Media
Message Board Statistics