ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (3/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

California

Positive Appellate Court Decision Halted by CA Supreme Court

The California Supreme Court has granted review of the appellate court decision, People v. Tirey, which increased slightly the number of registered citizens eligible to apply for a certificate of rehabilitation. The appellate court’s decision did not, however, change the criteria for who could be granted a certificate.

The appellate court decision was issued in November 15, 2013, and was based upon the equal protection clause of the constitution. Because the Supreme Court has granted review, the holding in the Tirey case cannot be used as precedent until that court render its decision.

“A decision from the California Supreme Court is not expected soon, ” stated CA RSOL president Janice Bellucci. “In the meantime, there is an additional threat to the case in the form of a bill pending in the California legislature.”

That bill is Assembly Bill 1438, which if passed by both the Assembly and the Senate and signed by the Governor would reverse the appellate court decision. The Assembly passed the bill on April 24 and sent it to the California Senate where the Senate Appropriations Committee is scheduled to consider the bill on June 30.

“It is unfortunate that this bill is being considered during an election year,” stated Bellucci. “During an election year, elected officials are more likely to react from emotion and ignore the facts such as the rate of re-offense for registered citizens on parole is only 1.8 percent.”

People v. Tirey

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 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.  
 
6 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Hate prevails. Mindlessness prevails. And the gutless politicians don’t do anything to stand for what is right, in fact throw innocent victims on the fire. Still, I think this article above is also kind of skewed. The appellate court did not decide that more people should be eligible to apply for a certificate of rehabilitation. It said nothing about how many people should be eligible. But yes, it did say those convicted under section 288(a) PC should be eligible to apply for a certificate. While that will mean more people, the point of this case was not how many people… Read more »

I think those in power are not going to begin to realise they have a sadiatic addiction to punishing people, especially those they label sex offenders, until society as a whole hits bottom, to use a term from 12 step addiction programs. They will always hide their illness behind the mask of children’s welfare, until their illness becomes too extreme to hide from anyone, except themselves. How many people are going to be hurt before that happens, I hate to guess.

Can someone give a link to the filing? I can’t find any reference to it in the filing records for the supreme court.

What is the source of this article?

Just my opinion, worth what you paid for it. The California supreme court review is intended to block any pending action for relief that might have gone through under Tirey until AB1438 passes.

June 30 status in the state senate:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/asm/ab_1401-1450/ab_1438_bill_20140701_history.html

is DO pass.

Politicians want to seem tough on crime, but it’s only certain crimes that will get them elected. They know most offenders are not predators, yet they are plastered all over the internet like they are. When ever an offender moves into a neighborhood that’s on Megan’s list, they know they are constantly harassed and some are killed. Yet we see no legislative action to save any offenders from further torture. Now if all this hype over offenders is about child protection, then why are so many innocent little kids killed every year by repeat drunk drivers and we see no… Read more »

Greg, you are certainly correct about innocent people being killed by DUI drivers …. Not to mention the VERY HIGH recidivism rate of DUI drivers. And what about all the children who die by abuse or negligence at the hands of their parents? Politicians seem to not care less about those children and those crimes. But Registered Citizens are always target for unfair, unconstitutional legislative abuse.

6
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.