Living with 290: Are there any 290 registrant get off parole early ?

Hey Shawn How long u been in Sacramento?

I heard from a lawyer Armando Miranda that there’s a case where someone’s gotten relief

Armando Miranda with the San Francisco public defender office

I’m being told 10 year parole is mandatory

I’ve heard from several sources, including from other parolees in different counties, that there is some sort of “new” law in effect for 290’s regarding early discharge. Even my therapist at Hope has stated that there is something going on with parole. She has stated a few guys in the program were “up and discharged” from parole with no notice given to the Hope program. Hope contacted the agent after a parolee didn’t show up to therapy and the agent informed them that the parolee was discharged early.
Anyhow… I first heard about this “new policy” in the parole office. Some random parolee was running his mouth in the lobby about a new parole length based on risk assessments. It basically went: 290’s would be discharged early if they had low score, successful poly’s, positive CTM’s, etc. Low scores would be cut loose at the 3 year mark (37th month, like in Title 15). Medium and High Risk assessments would likely complete their entire term. Now, that seemed like “yard talk” to me; however, I contacted someone on parole in a different county (he’s in Oakland) to see if he heard anything up there. He told me that his agent had just informed of this new policy of early discharge based solely on risk assessments earlier that day!!! Weird! Too much coincidence. It gets wierder…
The next day, someone in my Hope group informed us that his agent said that our parole office needed to shed 50 parolees a month to keep up with intake from prison. New parolees are being given longer terms, which means parole is facing supersaturation of parolee caseload. Discharging 50 parolees a month just to keep balance. That’s interesting news. 3 different people, 3 different agents, none knew about each other. Add to that what the therapist said and things are interesting.
This makes sense with a guy on the inside that I still talk to. He told me that CDCR is reclassifying every 290. They are doing something with risk assessments and it has something to do with milestone processing and early release to parole. He said a big batch of inmates are supposedly hitting the streets within the next 3 months according to what’s being said “inside”. I guess it has something to do with the milestone law and inmates winning the lawsuit. I don’t know, I don’t follow that stuff as closely anymore since I’m not inside and none of it really matters. Assuming this is true, then parole is about to see a decent uptick in new parolees. DAPO tried opening a new office in El Cajon, but it failed. Budget plan was denied and they ended up creating a new “office” within the current office in Chula Vista in order to redraw jurisdiction lines (that’s what my last agent said to me). The agents are holding same caseloads, but working out of 2 “offices”. I guess they tried to get ahead of this influx and failed; now they have to do releasing to maintain stable caseload. That’s how I interpret what I’m seeing.
Lastly, my agent kind of tripped me out a few months ago. I’m on a 5 year parole. Same story as a lot of you, signed plea with 3, got 5 years. I 602’d, took it to court on Habeas, lost. Took it to CoA, lost. Took it Cal Sup Ct, lost. I gave up the fight earlier this year. I’m currently a little over my 3 year mark, figured I’d just wait it out – I’m over the hump.
Anyhow… back to my agent. She sat with me at the kitchen table on a regular monthly house visit. We sat for 30 minutes, she kept asking about future plans post-parole. Like, where am I planning on going, how am I planning on surviving, am I going to continue to obey laws, what would I do once I’m discharged, etc. I have no violations, successful poly’s, etc. Mind you, I still have 2 years to go. This seems strange. Anyhow, I got the impression she was feeling out early discharge potential. I recently changed agents; however, in our last meeting, my last agent told me that they were putting me up for consideration and that I shouldn’t count on it going through, but if it did “good luck and stay safe”.

@The Static-99R Is A Scam, Agree with everything you stated. It is also nice to see someone that can come back with an intellectual argument without bashing on someone personally over a serious subject that a lot of people feel very strongly about. I overwhelmingly believe that the non-contact, male victims, and stranger victims are correct in adding points, but I am biased because the non-contact and stranger so called victim adds to my score, but if the static 99 is 82% accurate then I would say use it as it is being used in parole, but anything after the targeted two to three years that it was created specifically for, people that are no longer on parole, no way. That is all that tool was designed for and the only thing that it legally applies to. Now if the legislators were trying to use that for classification, which they are not because they are going to use offense based tiering, which is a major problem both with the court and their own CASOMB conflict. Like you stated, static 99 is very misleading in their numbers because it has nothing to do with actual recidivism at all, overall. That 82% is just as you stated, from the extremely low group of offenders that did recidivate. That is CASOMB stating that not academia, the state agencies can get some numbers right every once in a while, especially after years of recommendations to the legislature in their reports that have been ignored, for decades actually. Academia studies are skewed in order to get funding or recognition, and they are reasonably questionable in both methodology and proxy users under the adjudicative fact standard, but when you dig into them you can find the true meat. I hate to defend any gov entities but I have to maintain that the CASOMB members are just stating facts because I am going to use the crap out of them in my case. I have done extensive research on them and they are not pushing any self interest agenda other then attempting to make a diligent effort to improve the system. I know it seems crazy and unbelievable in this day and age of corruption and deceit, but even I am amazed at their good faith efforts over the years. That article that you cited has some great citations and thank you for citing that as I can use a bunch of citations out of that for my case. I am really focusing on Hanson for academia, as according to the state’s own entities, Hanson is the go to source for academia and he has totally reversed his statistics as compared to earlier studies and has been very specific about recidivism, and long term recidivism at that. Here is another great citation Hanson and Harris out of that article,
ANDREW J.R. HARRIS & R. KARL HANSON, PUB. SAFETY & EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS CANA, SEX OFFENDER RECIDIVISM: A SIMPLE QUESTION 1 (2004), https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/sx-ffndr-rcdvsm/sx-ffndr-rcdvsm-eng.pdf.
Harris and Hanson found that the rate of recidivism in the populations they studied decreased by half every five years. Id. at 9.

The fact is none of academia really matters as compared to gov reports by entities whom are statutorily required to scientifically collect recidivism date and asses the impacts of both recidivism rates and efficacy of programs….. The data they collect are facts not assertions by some self interest group of academics with fiduciary interest. And the list of members on the board of CASOMB is overwhelming and includes LE, CA AG, DAs, judges, sexual abuse advocates, and the list goes on. There is no way that they can refute the facts that their own representatives in every field have put forth.