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.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 06-16-2017, 10:40 AM
miamac's Avatar
miamac miamac is offline
Site Moderator Gone Mad

Staff Superstar Winner PTO Site Moderator 

 

Join Date: May 2013
Location: ORnativeAZresCAtied
Posts: 9,296
Thanks: 12,133
Thanked 17,031 Times in 6,290 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rnsgaig View Post
Does anyone understand how this will effect someone sentenced to a determinate AND indeterminate term that totals less than 25 years (12 years plus 7 to life)?
If they follow the previous procedure, the determinate would not qualify as they must serve a min of 15 years. The indeterminate may qualify, but I believe they would have to serve the min 25 years in order to see a youth hearing. Obviously we hope your LO isn't serving 25 on a 7-L. I could be wrong and they may use a YPH standard at his regular hearing, but it's worded in such a way that it appears they have to complete the 25 years first.

Last edited by miamac; 06-16-2017 at 10:42 AM..
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to miamac For This Useful Post:
rnsgaig (06-16-2017)
Sponsored Links
  #102  
Old 06-16-2017, 11:07 AM
rnsgaig rnsgaig is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: California
Posts: 368
Thanks: 524
Thanked 535 Times in 239 Posts
Default

Thank you Miamac. My question was not about my LO who has a determinate 12 year sentence, but about another inmate that I know. He was 19 when he committed his crime in 2006 and is currently scheduled for his first parole hearing in 2023, which I believe would be 85% of 12+7. I am concerned that this may make him eligible for parole at 85% of 15, which would be within a year or two. Quick math is not my strong point, but what I am understanding now is that he wouldn't be eligible for a Youth Offender Parole hearing at all, unless he is denied at his first adult hearing?

For clarity, this is someone who's release I am not in favor of.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 06-16-2017, 11:35 AM
miamac's Avatar
miamac miamac is offline
Site Moderator Gone Mad

Staff Superstar Winner PTO Site Moderator 

 

Join Date: May 2013
Location: ORnativeAZresCAtied
Posts: 9,296
Thanks: 12,133
Thanked 17,031 Times in 6,290 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rnsgaig View Post
Thank you Miamac. My question was not about my LO who has a determinate 12 year sentence, but about another inmate that I know. He was 19 when he committed his crime in 2006 and is currently scheduled for his first parole hearing in 2023, which I believe would be 85% of 12+7. I am concerned that this may make him eligible for parole at 85% of 15, which would be within a year or two. Quick math is not my strong point, but what I am understanding now is that he wouldn't be eligible for a Youth Offender Parole hearing at all, unless he is denied at his first adult hearing?

For clarity, this is someone who's release I am not in favor of.
I've moved our posts to the SB261 thread just because the person was 19 at the time and that makes puts them under this bill and not the AB for age 25 and under.

OK, so I was all over the map with this one so I went to the text (ha! seems obvious, and yet... )

(2) A person who was convicted of a controlling offense that was committed before the person had attained 23 years of age and for which the sentence is a life term of less than 25 years to life shall be eligible for release on parole by the board during his or her 20th year of incarceration at a youth offender parole hearing, unless previously released or entitled to an earlier parole consideration hearing pursuant to other statutory provisions.

I believe this means he will NOT see a YOP.

Last edited by miamac; 06-16-2017 at 11:39 AM..
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to miamac For This Useful Post:
rnsgaig (06-16-2017)
  #104  
Old 11-04-2017, 08:15 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: 9,296
Thanks: 12,133
Thanked 17,031 Times in 6,290 Posts
Default

OK, y'all. I'm beating my head against the wall over here and maybe if I "talk it out" in the thread it will make sense to me.

Quick recap for those who haven't seen my bajillion posts about my husband's timeline for 261.
YOP eligibility date is March of 2016.
Had his consultation in June of 2016.
Was told he would be heard by end of 2017, not happening.

NOW: the inmate locator has yet another added feature to track actions or possible action dates by the board. It's at the bottom, a yellow button. If you click it you can see info like eligibility date, consultation and hearing date info.

So I went to the hearing schedule and April has a TON of initial YOP hearings scheduled (yay!!!) and I wanted to see when they had their consultations and what their eligibility date ranges were, hoping to get an idea of when we might get a date.

Well, eff me-- and no ill will intended if I'm describing your LOs situation, I'm just baffled as heck. There are people with initial YOP hearings on the calendar with eligibility dates of Jan and Feb of 2018.

Why are they scheduling people not yet eligible but those who's date is (waaaaay) past are still twiddling their thumbs? As of tonight, the locator has mine down for a potential hearing in Dec of 2021-- the deadline set by CDCR.

I'm beyond frustrated and maybe the 2021 date is a placeholder until he's on the calendar, but holy smokes it didn't feel good to see. He's already 19-20 months past his YEPD and zero obvious reasons for it being delayed further.

Last edited by miamac; 11-04-2017 at 08:44 PM.. Reason: date correction
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to miamac For This Useful Post:
Tatiana23 (11-05-2017)
  #105  
Old 11-04-2017, 08:42 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: 9,296
Thanks: 12,133
Thanked 17,031 Times in 6,290 Posts
Default

Took some screen shots so it might be more clear.
First one is my husband's, second is someone else. Both fall under YOP guidelines.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Husband.jpg (77.7 KB, 18 views)
File Type: jpg OtherInmate.jpg (58.5 KB, 14 views)
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to miamac For This Useful Post:
Tatiana23 (11-05-2017)
  #106  
Old 11-05-2017, 05:22 PM
xolady xolady is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: May 2014
Location: highlands, florida
Posts: 5,296
Thanks: 10,636
Thanked 5,282 Times in 2,781 Posts
Red face

Quote:
Originally Posted by miamac View Post
Took some screen shots so it might be more clear.
First one is my husband's, second is someone else. Both fall under YOP guidelines.
Wow this totally sucks I hate this stuff it's like beating a dead horse with the stupid prison systems. I hope maybe someone who can actually do some good can look into this for you!!!
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 11-05-2017, 05:37 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: 9,296
Thanks: 12,133
Thanked 17,031 Times in 6,290 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xolady View Post
Wow this totally sucks I hate this stuff it's like beating a dead horse with the stupid prison systems. I hope maybe someone who can actually do some good can look into this for you!!!
It's very frustrating. Talking to staff inside you get about as much info as we can now access ourselves. Last conversation he was told "December 2021". But that's the deadline for them to have everyone done so it doesn't mean squat. When we contacted Sacramento (headquarters) we were told the same thing. It may just be that he's on the next round to get scheduled, but it's hard not to get riled up when you see people getting dates who aren't even eligible yet. :/

Thank you for letting me vent! :P
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to miamac For This Useful Post:
sidewalker (11-06-2017), xolady (11-05-2017)
  #108  
Old 11-05-2017, 05:42 PM
xolady xolady is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: May 2014
Location: highlands, florida
Posts: 5,296
Thanks: 10,636
Thanked 5,282 Times in 2,781 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miamac View Post
It's very frustrating. Talking to staff inside you get about as much info as we can now access ourselves. Last conversation he was told "December 2021". But that's the deadline for them to have everyone done so it doesn't mean squat. When we contacted Sacramento (headquarters) we were told the same thing. It may just be that he's on the next round to get scheduled, but it's hard not to get riled up when you see people getting dates who aren't even eligible yet. :/

Thank you for letting me vent! :P
Oh vent away!!! I can just imagine the frustration and knowing me everyone in a 30,000 mile radius would know about it!!! Hang tough chin up!!!
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to xolady For This Useful Post:
miamac (11-05-2017), sidewalker (11-06-2017)
  #109  
Old 11-06-2017, 01:21 PM
trueblue310's Avatar
trueblue310 trueblue310 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: CA
Posts: 779
Thanks: 115
Thanked 340 Times in 218 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miamac View Post
It's very frustrating. Talking to staff inside you get about as much info as we can now access ourselves. Last conversation he was told "December 2021". But that's the deadline for them to have everyone done so it doesn't mean squat. When we contacted Sacramento (headquarters) we were told the same thing. It may just be that he's on the next round to get scheduled, but it's hard not to get riled up when you see people getting dates who aren't even eligible yet. :/

Thank you for letting me vent! :P
I've been doing the same just to get an idea of how behind or what not they are and I also noticed that.. but from what I can tell its those having to serve 15 years. I haven't found one that has to serve 20 or 25 that are getting scheduled early. Don't know if yours has a determinate or indeterminate sentence but just something I noticed. M husband has a determinate sentence so I can't lie and say it wasn't kinda exciting to see those getting scheduled
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 11-06-2017, 01:57 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: 9,296
Thanks: 12,133
Thanked 17,031 Times in 6,290 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trueblue310 View Post
I've been doing the same just to get an idea of how behind or what not they are and I also noticed that.. but from what I can tell its those having to serve 15 years. I haven't found one that has to serve 20 or 25 that are getting scheduled early. Don't know if yours has a determinate or indeterminate sentence but just something I noticed. M husband has a determinate sentence so I can't lie and say it wasn't kinda exciting to see those getting scheduled
Mine is a determinate. His 15 years was up March 2016.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 11-06-2017, 02:28 PM
trueblue310's Avatar
trueblue310 trueblue310 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: CA
Posts: 779
Thanks: 115
Thanked 340 Times in 218 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miamac View Post
Mine is a determinate. His 15 years was up March 2016.
Oh wow
Yea idk. The few that I looked into were all determinate and seemed to be going up early. At least that’s what it looked like
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to trueblue310 For This Useful Post:
miamac (11-06-2017)
  #112  
Old 12-04-2017, 10:03 PM
ATH's Avatar
ATH ATH is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: California, USA
Posts: 46
Thanks: 7
Thanked 15 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miamac View Post
Took some screen shots so it might be more clear.
First one is my husband's, second is someone else. Both fall under YOP guidelines.

I was hoping that you might be able to explain what this means. My fiance's counselor will not discuss things with him. Ive been following the threads about this and seems like you have a better understanding than i do lol.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Screenshot_20171204-205821.jpg (38.8 KB, 9 views)
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 12-04-2017, 11:26 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: 9,296
Thanks: 12,133
Thanked 17,031 Times in 6,290 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ATH View Post
I was hoping that you might be able to explain what this means. My fiance's counselor will not discuss things with him. Ive been following the threads about this and seems like you have a better understanding than i do lol.
Counselor's are stubborn beasts, at time.
Their consultation date *should* be at least six years before their hearing eligibility date. So if they're saying he'll have a consultation in 2028, that *should* mean that his hearing will be sometime in 2034.

If he's a determinate sentence, 2034 should be his 15 year mark.
If he's less than 25-Life, 2034 should be his 20th year.
If he's 25-Life, 2034 should be his 25th year.

I say *should* on all of these because that's how the bill was written. It's a little tough to tell if they're hitting the six year consultation mark and they've got a backlog a mile long of hearings. But by the time 2028 rolls around, they should be running on time.

A consultation is a meeting with a member of the board. It's not a hearing, it's not formal. It's a sit-down conversation where the board member looks at their C-file and tells them how they might better prepare themselves for parole in their remaining time. If an inmate is programming and avoiding trouble, this meeting sure be purely positive news.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 12-17-2017, 03:12 AM
ATH's Avatar
ATH ATH is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: California, USA
Posts: 46
Thanks: 7
Thanked 15 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miamac View Post
Counselor's are stubborn beasts, at time.
Their consultation date *should* be at least six years before their hearing eligibility date. So if they're saying he'll have a consultation in 2028, that *should* mean that his hearing will be sometime in 2034.

If he's a determinate sentence, 2034 should be his 15 year mark.
If he's less than 25-Life, 2034 should be his 20th year.
If he's 25-Life, 2034 should be his 25th year.

I say *should* on all of these because that's how the bill was written. It's a little tough to tell if they're hitting the six year consultation mark and they've got a backlog a mile long of hearings. But by the time 2028 rolls around, they should be running on time.

A consultation is a meeting with a member of the board. It's not a hearing, it's not formal. It's a sit-down conversation where the board member looks at their C-file and tells them how they might better prepare themselves for parole in their remaining time. If an inmate is programming and avoiding trouble, this meeting sure be purely positive news.
Thank you so much for the run down. I deeply appreciate it. Wish you and yours a very merry christmas and an amazing new year.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to ATH For This Useful Post:
miamac (12-17-2017)
  #115  
Old 02-18-2018, 07:41 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: 9,296
Thanks: 12,133
Thanked 17,031 Times in 6,290 Posts
Default

This is getting ridiculous so I'm posting in the hopes that someone might have insight into (excuse me, but...) WTF is going on with their scheduling for hearings.

I've posted our situation so many times over the boards, I hate to repeat it. But...he's 261 eligible, his eligibility date was April of 2016 and he's had his consultation. So we're now almost two years past his eligibility date, no hearing date in sight.

I just checked the BPH schedule for July and the first two inmates listed as YO hearings were eligible Jan 2018. The third isn't eligible until next month, but he's on the schedule and has only been inside 11 years. I thought 15 was the min?

I'm so angry and frustrated I can't even express. Does anyone know where we can direct our questions other than a generic "Sac" contact? I've written before and was told they won't discuss it with me, he's written and been quoted the same date on the locator which is 2021.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 02-19-2018, 08:35 AM
gvalliant gvalliant is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Costa Mesa, California, USA
Posts: 470
Thanks: 810
Thanked 927 Times in 391 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miamac View Post
This is getting ridiculous so I'm posting in the hopes that someone might have insight into (excuse me, but...) WTF is going on with their scheduling for hearings.

I've posted our situation so many times over the boards, I hate to repeat it. But...he's 261 eligible, his eligibility date was April of 2016 and he's had his consultation. So we're now almost two years past his eligibility date, no hearing date in sight.

I just checked the BPH schedule for July and the first two inmates listed as YO hearings were eligible Jan 2018. The third isn't eligible until next month, but he's on the schedule and has only been inside 11 years. I thought 15 was the min?

I'm so angry and frustrated I can't even express. Does anyone know where we can direct our questions other than a generic "Sac" contact? I've written before and was told they won't discuss it with me, he's written and been quoted the same date on the locator which is 2021.
Jennifer Shaffer is the head of BPH. My best guess, Mia, would be address it to her. I would be surprised if she responded directly to mail from inmates, spouses and friends of inmates. But maybe she has staff who will send something that gives a better response to specific questions.

Jennifer Shaffer, Executive Officer
Board of Parole Hearings
P.O. Box 4036
Sacramento, CA 95812
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to gvalliant For This Useful Post:
miamac (02-19-2018)
  #117  
Old 02-19-2018, 11:22 AM
miamac's Avatar
miamac miamac is offline
Site Moderator Gone Mad

Staff Superstar Winner PTO Site Moderator 

 

Join Date: May 2013
Location: ORnativeAZresCAtied
Posts: 9,296
Thanks: 12,133
Thanked 17,031 Times in 6,290 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gvalliant View Post
Jennifer Shaffer is the head of BPH. My best guess, Mia, would be address it to her. I would be surprised if she responded directly to mail from inmates, spouses and friends of inmates. But maybe she has staff who will send something that gives a better response to specific questions.

Jennifer Shaffer, Executive Officer
Board of Parole Hearings
P.O. Box 4036
Sacramento, CA 95812
We went that route before, I was told they couldn't speak with me, citing privacy, but my husband received a letter in response stating that they had him down as "no later than 2021" which is the deadline for all determinates. So all they do when we request the info is look at the same computer screen (well, perhaps not the same) and read the information we can now see ourselves.

I just don't understand the inconsistency. Has anyone written to Prison Law Office and received assistance around things like this?
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to miamac For This Useful Post:
gvalliant (02-19-2018)
  #118  
Old 02-19-2018, 03:58 PM
missingmybrat missingmybrat is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: California
Posts: 74
Thanks: 1
Thanked 18 Times in 15 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gvalliant View Post
Jennifer Shaffer is the head of BPH. My best guess, Mia, would be address it to her. I would be surprised if she responded directly to mail from inmates, spouses and friends of inmates. But maybe she has staff who will send something that gives a better response to specific questions.

Jennifer Shaffer, Executive Officer
Board of Parole Hearings
P.O. Box 4036
Sacramento, CA 95812
My husband has written to Jennifer Shaffer at least 5 times over the past 2 years, with not a single response. He's in the same boat. 261 eligible, YEPD 2012. No hearing in sight either.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to missingmybrat For This Useful Post:
gvalliant (02-19-2018), miamac (02-19-2018)
  #119  
Old 02-19-2018, 08:23 PM
gvalliant gvalliant is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Costa Mesa, California, USA
Posts: 470
Thanks: 810
Thanked 927 Times in 391 Posts
Default

Quote:
So all they do when we request the info is look at the same computer screen (well, perhaps not the same) and read the information we can now see ourselves.
Quote:
My husband has written to Jennifer Shaffer at least 5 times over the past 2 years, with not a single response. He's in the same boat. 261 eligible, YEPD 2012. No hearing in sight either.
So disappointing and so arrogant. Government officials looking down their nose at you, assuming you lack basic intelligence. I have written once to the warden of a prison and once to litigation officer. Received similar mush back from both.

I like your thought re PLO. I wrote to them once on an issue and did receive a response re-iterating their policy of not taking up individual cases. They are interested in taking up causes that affect many inmates. This sounds like one of them. Maybe write them making sure it points out this is affecting many SB261 eligible inmates. I think they will respond. Hopefully it will be a more respectful answer. Passing laws does us no good if CDCR chooses to not act on them.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to gvalliant For This Useful Post:
miamac (02-19-2018), sidewalker (02-22-2018)
  #120  
Old 02-19-2018, 09:25 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: 9,296
Thanks: 12,133
Thanked 17,031 Times in 6,290 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gvalliant View Post
I like your thought re PLO. I wrote to them once on an issue and did receive a response re-iterating their policy of not taking up individual cases. They are interested in taking up causes that affect many inmates. This sounds like one of them. Maybe write them making sure it points out this is affecting many SB261 eligible inmates.
Even if they could or would be willing to look into the process to ensure that it's being applied equally, that would be somewhat reassuring. Of course I'd like information specific to my husband, but I strongly suspect there are more than two of us with this issue. And if the inmate has no one to advocate for them out here, we can see that requests for assistance just hit a brick wall.

I will write them and see what comes of it. I'll use my husband as an example but will make it known that it's my concern for the process in general that causes me to reach out. Maybe I should send copies to Shaffer and chief counsel Neill...? Opinions on that? I'm very cautious about backlash.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to miamac For This Useful Post:
gvalliant (02-20-2018)
  #121  
Old 02-19-2018, 09:32 PM
Hurley123 Hurley123 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: California
Posts: 166
Thanks: 513
Thanked 153 Times in 80 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miamac View Post
Took some screen shots so it might be more clear.
First one is my husband's, second is someone else. Both fall under YOP guidelines.
Sorry I'm just learning about this stuff... but where do you find this information?
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 02-20-2018, 08:58 AM
gvalliant gvalliant is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Costa Mesa, California, USA
Posts: 470
Thanks: 810
Thanked 927 Times in 391 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miamac View Post
Even if they could or would be willing to look into the process to ensure that it's being applied equally, that would be somewhat reassuring. Of course I'd like information specific to my husband, but I strongly suspect there are more than two of us with this issue. And if the inmate has no one to advocate for them out here, we can see that requests for assistance just hit a brick wall.

I will write them and see what comes of it. I'll use my husband as an example but will make it known that it's my concern for the process in general that causes me to reach out. Maybe I should send copies to Shaffer and chief counsel Neill...? Opinions on that? I'm very cautious about backlash.
If I were writing and my son were an example for this (he is not) I would talk about his specifics and how his situation is an example of many. I would talk about how I (and many others) have written BPH / Jennifer Shaffer and received unsatisfactory, generic and unrelated responses.

Of course they will know who she is. Including that info will demonstrate that you and your husband and others have tried and exhausted reasonable options available to you. if you have written to or copied Chief Counsel Neill, I'd also include that information in my letter. PLO will not give you any backlash. I don't know and never seen / met Shaffer or Neill personally. I get what you're thinking that copying one or both might spur them to action. I would be too nervous about backlash compared to any potential benefit to copy them.

I have written to PLO about issues related to Valley Fever and Federal control of State prison healthcare. Both times I did not get specific action; they have limits on what they can do. But in both cases, they did respond and did send me more information then CDCR provides.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to gvalliant For This Useful Post:
miamac (02-20-2018)
  #123  
Old 02-20-2018, 11:01 AM
miamac's Avatar
miamac miamac is offline
Site Moderator Gone Mad

Staff Superstar Winner PTO Site Moderator 

 

Join Date: May 2013
Location: ORnativeAZresCAtied
Posts: 9,296
Thanks: 12,133
Thanked 17,031 Times in 6,290 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurley123 View Post
Sorry I'm just learning about this stuff... but where do you find this information?
I think you're asking about where you find the information in the screenshots?

That would be on the inmate locator.
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 02-21-2018, 09:39 PM
Hurley123 Hurley123 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: California
Posts: 166
Thanks: 513
Thanked 153 Times in 80 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miamac View Post
I think you're asking about where you find the information in the screenshots?

That would be on the inmate locator.
Thank you...but my guy is Feds It's not the same right? I mean information about parole would be located somewhere else?? When I was at visit the other day my guy mentioned something about a bill being signed reducing the 85% to 65% for parole. He said it only needed one more signature. Could this be true or am I getting this all confused. It's hard to ask the right questions when I'm just trying to put all the dots together....all this information can be so convoluted!
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 02-22-2018, 03:41 AM
miamac's Avatar
miamac miamac is offline
Site Moderator Gone Mad

Staff Superstar Winner PTO Site Moderator 

 

Join Date: May 2013
Location: ORnativeAZresCAtied
Posts: 9,296
Thanks: 12,133
Thanked 17,031 Times in 6,290 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurley123 View Post
Thank you...but my guy is Feds It's not the same right? I mean information about parole would be located somewhere else?? When I was at visit the other day my guy mentioned something about a bill being signed reducing the 85% to 65% for parole. He said it only needed one more signature. Could this be true or am I getting this all confused. It's hard to ask the right questions when I'm just trying to put all the dots together....all this information can be so convoluted!
Ahh, OK. Yes, this is state sentenced info only. I'm not familiar with fed bills in the works but I'm sure it's been talked about if it's that close. I'd post in the BOP forum and see what comes up.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to miamac For This Useful Post:
Hurley123 (02-22-2018)
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 Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New California City Visiting Schedule beginning September 5, 2015 Dee186 California Community Corrections Facilities 31 12-02-2015 10:17 AM
September Card Count 2015 Tx_Angel Elsa's Inmate Card Projects 34 09-30-2015 11:04 AM
Has anyone heard about new rules being passed in September? gregsgal Texas Prison and Jail Visitation, Phones, Packages & Mail 6 10-02-2010 12:04 AM
Bills that passed to be effective in September mysticalbtrfly1 Texas Prison & Criminal Justice News & Events 22 09-21-2007 10:28 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:35 AM.
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