ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (4/17 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings
ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18, 2021


Additional Counseling Not Required For Some Registrants

The California Supreme Court has denied review of a case thereby relieving some registered citizens from the duty to participate in a state-mandated sex offender management program.  Specifically, as a result of the Supreme Court’s denial, registered citizens currently on probation whose sex offense occurred prior to September 10, 2010, are not required to complete a sex offender management program mandated by Penal Code Section 1203.067(b).

The Supreme Court’s decision lets stand the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case People v. Douglas M. which was decided on October 24, 2013.  The case was appealed shortly thereafter.

“This is an important decision for registrants whose offenses occurred prior to September 10, 2010,” stated CA RSOL President Janice Bellucci.  “No longer will they be required to participate in an expensive and intrusive program.”

The Supreme Court’s decision was issued on January 21, 2014.  The citation for the Court of Appeal decision is 220 Cal.App.4th 1068 and a link to that decision can be found below.

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind... 
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please do not solicit funds
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Another one bites the dust thanks to Janice and California RSOL!

Thanks Janice, a little more hope for us all each day because of you. When we are finally able to get job’s again, we will be able to donate more to this cause and all your efforts.

What is good for probationers is generally also good for parolees. (People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486, fn. omitted, 124 Cal.Rptr. 905, 541 P.2d 545.) FN5 FN5. The Lent case concerned conditions of probation. As the court in Stevens noted, “[t]he criteria for assessing the constitutionality of conditions of probation also applies to conditions of parole.” (Stevens, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1233, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 168.)”)

Gentleman start filing your writ to insure that this also applies to parolees!

How to I go about filing a writ. I was convicted 10/4/2007. The way I read the new law in acted is I would not have to have my conditions modified. I have been out on parole since 7/1/10 with no violations and now with 140 days left. I was told to go to treatment even though I had less than one year I didn’t even meet the requirements. I have read that since the new law is non-retro active as I see and read it. How do I find and get a hold of the decision and who do… Read more »

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x