Newly Filed Lawsuit Challenges CDCR Regs for Prop 57

A lawsuit was filed on April 27 challenging regulations recently issued by the CA Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) which prohibit the beneficial effects of Proposition 57 from applying to anyone convicted of a sex offense.  Those benefits include shorter prison terms that result from earning credit for good behavior as well as participation in rehabilitative, educational and career training programs.

        “Most registrable sex offenses are not violent offenses according to existing state law,” stated attorney Janice Bellucci.  “Therefore, CDCR’s regulations have no legal foundation and are unlawful.”

        The lawsuit, filed in Sacramento County Superior Court, requests a declaration that parts of the CDCR regulation are void and invalid.  The lawsuit also requests a writ that would require CDCR to apply the benefits of Proposition 57 to registrants convicted of non-violent felonies.

        “Proposition 57’s inclusion of all offenses not already designated ‘violent’ by state law was intentional, well-publicized, and within the contemplation of those who voted for it,” according to the lawsuit.  “Supporters and opponents of the measure routinely listed and described the specific offenses that would be eligible for early parole consideration if Proposition 57 became law, including nonviolent Registrable Offenses.”

        Proposition 57 was passed during the November 2016 elections.  The Official Voter Information Guide for that proposition included statements from opponents that identified many of the registrable offenses that would become eligible for early parole condition if the proposition was passed.  Many law enforcement officials also explained to the public at that time that Proposition 57 would apply to all inmates unless they had been convicted of a violent felony.

        After passage of Proposition 57, CDCR issued several public statements explaining the provisions of that proposition.  In its public statements, CDCR repeatedly confirmed that all inmates are eligible for early parole consideration unless their convictions were designated as violent.  One of those public statements came from CDCR Secretary Scott Kernan, who in a video released to inmates stated that “all inmates currently serving convictions for a nonviolent offense….will be able to participate in this parole process.”

        The number of individuals incarcerated in California for sex offenses was 24,724 as of January 2017, according to the CA Sex Offender Management Board.  It is not known at this time how many of those individuals were convicted of non-violent felonies.

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. 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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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.  
 

33 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Thanks, Janice!

You are amazing!

Good. I hope they win. Sex offenses has to be one of the biggest (if not the biggest) misunderstood boogeyman out there. Vast majority of citizens beliefs on he matter are just about the opposite of actual facts. And too many politicians are more than happy to keep feeding the ignorance. Their want to keep their job harms far more people directly and indirectly than it supposedly supposed to protect.

This is a great suit..I am glad they are being challenged when they unlawfully apply their own interpretations of the law. Man just going to college up here in Sacramento can be confusing at best. The law states that I have to register every time I enroll or un enroll but I never really un enroll since I am a full time student so I have to go to campus police every semester with a copy of my class schedule and now I am taking an online course this summer and I am reading and finding a form on the CA DOJ website that I have to fill out and mail by certified mail to the campus police within working days 5 days of starting class and ending class. I am so tired of this crap and my gf doesn’t want me to file my suit yet because she is afraid of repercussions and it could jeopardize her job or make them harass me a school…I am so fet up with this crap though…

Finally. Now this is something good.

It is amazing that drug dealing is considered a nonviolent offense considering in Mexico more people have been murdered by the cartels than died in Vietnam, and all the carnage in Chicago is drug related. Yet still, unless a firearm was present , all of them will get time off from prop 57. So some serious misconceptions are present.

Excellent news! Slowly chipping away at this whole scheme. We need more lawsuits like this.

I did 5 years on State Parole, even though i was sentenced to 3 and my conviction and sentencing was prior to 2003 when the “3001” amendment went into effect. When everyone else was getting half-time, i got 85%.

It’s not just prop 57. This 85% requirement for good-time credits are just as bad. Even if a person does not go to prison for a 290 offense, but are currently registered as 290’s, will also be forced to do 85% and subject to the same restrictions as if their “controlling case” was the 290-covered offense.

This crap has to end.

Who or what organization filed this lawsuit on April 27?

Janice, thanks for your tireless work to help us registrants.

The war for freedom we are in has many battles. Suits like this are one of many important ways that ACSOL changes our lives for the better.

Breaking news. Video of Janice going after the slithering underground regulation rearing its ugly head.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bfxOSqYQ50

What I am seeing as I take a more involved stance on registry matters, is that the silent are finally speaking out and if nothing else, are nodding their heads in support. Others are empathetic to the plight of those trying to reintegrate with their families and community after serving their time. Stand strong and know you are not alone. Thank you Janice and Pam and well…everybody fighting for us!

Thank you Janice for addressing this issue. For many years I typically became the Men’s Advisory Council Secretary and challenged many adverse policies which often got me into trouble with the guards. I knew the risks and paid the consequences for my efforts, but I tried. It was so frustrating not having anyone on the outside (such as yourself), to challenge these discriminatory rules and regulations. Those convicted of these types of crimes with an “R” suffix will always be at the bottom of the food chain and need all the help they can get. Thank you on behalf of all those inside, their families and their loved ones who will benefit from your efforts.

Are there any other lawsuits that have been filed on this behalf. My husband is currently incarcerated for drug charges but has a 290 case that has excluded him for prop 57 non violent consideration. We want to know if he can file a petition also.