ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)


CDCR Motion Denied in Prop. 57 Case; New Hearing Date Set

A Superior Court judge has denied the demurrer filed by the CA Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and canceled the hearing on that topic which was scheduled for October 27, 2017.  In addition, the judge scheduled a hearing on the merits of the case for February 9, 2018.  

“Because the judge did not grant CDCR’s demurrer, we will have the opportunity early next year to present legal arguments regarding how and why CDCR’s emergency regulations implementing Proposition 57 are both invalid and unconstitutional,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.  “The public is encouraged to attend that hearing.”

The new hearing is scheduled to be held on Friday, February 9, 2018, in Sacramento Superior Court, 720 9th Street, Dept. 44 before Judge Christopher Krueger beginning at 10:30 a.m. 

At issue in the case is whether CDCR can lawfully exclude individuals convicted of a sex offense from the potential benefits of Prop. 57 which could shorten an individual’s time in prison.  The language of Prop. 57, which the public passed in November 2016, states clearly that anyone convicted of a non-violent offense is eligible for those benefits and does not provide an exception for those convicted of a sex offense.

State law identifies a total of 23 felonies as violent.  Of that total, only 9 felonies are also sex offenses.  

“There are many sex offenses that state law does not categorize as violent,” stated Bellucci.  “These offenses include public indecency due to public urination and teens possessing photos of nude teens.” 

According to verified reports, individuals convicted of a sex offense decades ago are being denied the benefits of Prop. 57 despite the fact that they are currently incarcerated for a non-sex offense such as armed robbery or possession of drugs.      

Join the discussion

  1. Cool CA RC

    Great job Janice!!
    Keep at it !!

    • EddieV.

      Car to the posting of all sex offenders on the website I was a level one I was able to get credits while incarcerated I went to school I was able to move around freely in any building that I wanted because I was a parliamentarian which means I represented the Hispanics I was also a lieutenant to Runner and I can go anywhere in a facility I had privileges after they made that new law and our faces were plastered on the computer and our information while incarcerated in 2005 I was in a level 2 institutional locked up as if I was a level 5 escorted to visiting with shackles and two guards and no privileges I couldn’t go to school I couldn’t work I couldn’t do anything

  2. concerned registrant

    Great job Janice and team! Fight on!

  3. AlexO

    Great news! Thank you for your continued efforts!

  4. David Kennerly, Life Spent On A Shelf

    Janice, can you please tell us if these qualifying offenses include convictions for offenses said to be “sexually violent” for reasons only of the victims being under fourteen.

  5. Jack

    Those morons are gonna get slammed in the court. They have no clue what they’re up against.

  6. Antoine D. Jordan

    Janice thank you I appreciate your fight and I respect what you doing I called and spoke to you one day about trying to be placed on one of your cases that you was falling but you had enough people already and I’m sitting here in Lancaster state prison on a technical violation that they claim that I did not give them my address so I’m doing 25 to life for a address violation and if anybody has a non-violent case I do cuz there’s no victim on my case and prop 57 should fit me in every way I should not be excluded because of failing to register to my address

  7. Elizabeth Pedraza

    Is there anywhere to find the demurrer filed by the CA Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation that was denied? Thanks.

Leave a Reply

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.  

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *