CA: Sacramento Judge Rules Some of CDCR’s Prop. 57 Regulations Are Void

CA Proposition 57 tentative Ruling – 8 Feb 2018 (PDF)


A Superior Court Judge in Sacramento has ruled that provisions in emergency regulations issued by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) regarding registrants are void and therefore cannot be enforced. The regulation provisions at issue deny anyone convicted of a sex offense eligibility for parole consideration under Proposition 57.

The judge’s preliminary decision was issued in a tentative ruling dated February 8, 2018, and was the subject of a hearing conducted in Sacramento Superior Court this morning.

During today’s hearing, CDCR’s legal representative argued that Prop. 57 gives the agency discretion to determine who is and who is not eligible for parole consideration. She also argued that CDCR’s discretion extends to individuals who are currently incarcerated for a non-sex offense, but who were previously incarcerated for a sex offense. The tentative ruling does not support CDCR’s position, but does allow the agency to revise its regulations in order to be consistent with the language of Prop. 57.

“We will closely review any Prop. 57 regulations issued by CDCR in the future,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “If we believe the new regulations are inconsistent with Prop. 57, we will file a new lawsuit.”

The focus of the pending lawsuit is how the term “non-violent felony” is to be defined. Although Prop. 57 does not include a definition of “non-violent felony”, petitioners argued that current state law which defines “violent felony” should be used in CDCR’s regulations. If CDCR used that law (Penal Code Section 667.5), only 9 out of more than 100 sex offenses would be excluded from early parole consideration. The judge did not agree with this argument because he said there is insufficient evidence to identify the voters’ intent regarding use of that current law.

At the conclusion of today’s hearing, the judge stated that he will finalize his tentative ruling soon. After the final ruling is issued, the next step in the process is to draft a writ for the judge’s consideration. The draft writ could be challenged by CDCR in the future.


Added 2/13


[] Judge: California Must Eye Earlier Parole For Sex Offenders

[] California must consider earlier parole for sex offenders, judge rules




Related posts

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
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. 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.
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

Awesome! I’m glad to hear another judge is seeing the blatant hate for everything us. There was no logic in excluding sex offenses if they otherwise meet the criteria.

One of the guys in our rehab started the program voluntarily while going through the court process. In fact, he turned himself in on his own without any prior investigation against him (how many of us can say we even remotely considered doing that?). For a while it looked like an agreement was reached for him to get probation but at the last minute the judge pulled out the rug from under him and gave him 3 years in prison (and by doing so, he totally screwed his family as he was fully supporting his fiance and 3 kids. There was literally no reason to change the sentence so drastically other than a political move). Him not being eligible for early release under Prop 57 is a terrible injustice. Hopefully this’ll continue in the positive direction and he can get out earlier.

Con. sti. tu. tion.

John and Ken are whining about this on KFI right now.

Unfortunately the judge left it to the department to go back and define what is a violent felony, giving discretion to the department. It will certainly be better after this, but I fear still too many will be exempted from early release by what the department does. The process is still far from over.

Considering how California defines “sexual violence,” I’m not expecting those with simple AOC violations to be given any relief.

Remember Janice attempted CA P.C. 288(a) is a non-violent offense. People need to be clear on that because CDCR tried to give me 85% time instead of 1/2 time. They stated that attempted 288(a) was a violent offense. It is not and I won on appeal and thru the 602 process which both concluded it is not a violent offense according to CA law. Got my half time which knocked almost two years of of my sentence. I think there are many people sitting in prison past their actual time (85% instead of 1/2 time) because they are not challenging CDCR.

So now there is a petition in CA to add to the definition of “violent offender”. It would specifically classify any offense resulting in lifetime sex offender registration pursuant to Sections 290 as a violent offense.

If they get the signatures to get this on the ballot, I’m sure it will be approved by the voters.

So Janice’s great efforts could be for nothing. One step forward, two steps back.

Down with Big Brother and his underground regulations!

My brother was convicted of a non-violent offence that requires registration per PC 290 and he was sentenced to 5 years. He was told at classification that his offense was violent. After he proved to classification that his offense was indeed not listed in PC 667.5, the classification went on to tell him that PC 290 was worse than violent and that he would never be classified as minimum custody. he is currently a day for day 50% offender who other than his 290 requirement would easily qualify for minimum custody 2 for 1 credits. Does the judges ruling now qualify him to be treated the same as all other non-violent offenders in that they can receive 2 for 1 credits? It appears to me that this ruling would make him similarly situated as other non violent offenders.

“If CDCR used that law (Penal Code Section 667.5), only 9 out of more than 100 sex offenses would be excluded from early parole consideration. The judge did not agree with this argument because he said there is insufficient evidence to identify the voters’ intent regarding use of that current law.”

The CDCR contradicts itself on using 667.5 for parole eligibility. Section 2449.5. Factors to Consider During a Review on the Merits, they themselves specifically refer to physical violence, NOT psychological “violence”

288 (a) Lewd and Lascivious does not come with physical violence. Legislature deemed it “psychological harm” which in that case, all victims could claim psychological harm. 667.5 is a sentencing factor, right? People V Hetherington That concern leads to the second indicator of legislative intent. Section 667.5, subdivision (c) states: “The Legislature finds and declares that these specified crimes merit special consideration when imposing a sentence to display society’s [154 Cal. App. 3d 1140] condemnation for such extraordinary crimes of violence against the person.” (Italics added.) We consider it significant that the statute refers simply to “violence” rather than to “physical violence,” “physical injury” or “bodily harm.” The statute’s unadorned language indicates the Legislature intended to impose increased punishment via section 667.5, subdivision (c) not only for certain felonies which are “violent” in a physical sense but also for other selected felonies which cause extraordinary psychological or emotional harm. (Cf. People v. Caudillo (1978) 21 Cal. 3d 562, 582 [146 Cal. Rptr. 859, 580 P.2d 274] [reference to “physical injury” in § 12022.7 does not include psychological or emotional distress].) By adding subdivision (c) to section 288 in 1981 (see fn. 5, ante), the Legislature recognized both subdivisions (a) and (b) violations often cause irreparable psychological and emotional damage to child victims. Therefore, “to display society’s condemnation for such extraordinary crimes of violence against the person,” the Legislature included both subdivisions (a) and (b) within section 667.5, subdivision (c)(6). The Legislature acted within its discretion, based on its proper concern for the welfare of children, to include subdivision (a) offenses (but not to include other physically “nonviolent” sex offenses) within the scope of section 667.5, subdivision (c).”
(a) When conducting a review on the merits under section 2449.4, the hearing officer shall weigh the
factors in subsections (b) through (h) and, based on the totality of the circumstances, determine if the
inmate poses a current, unreasonable risk of violence or a current, unreasonable risk of significant
criminal activity. The inmate shall be approved for release if factors aggravating the inmate’s risk do not
exist or if they are outweighed by factors mitigating the inmate’s risk. When weighing the factors
aggravating and mitigating the inmate’s risk, the hearing officer shall take into account the relevance of
the information based on the passage of time, the inmate’s age, and the inmate’s physical and cognitive

Highlight “PHYSICAL” not mental injury.
Mitigating: (2) No victims suffered physical injury or threat of physical injury.

Is download of Child Porn, one count…FEDERAL OFFENSE….considered violent. How would that crime fit in this question. Also, My son’s PO, a Federal PO, and his group, all Federal felons with Fed employers leading the group,a Federal Counselor….say…that offense is not a cat 3 in the tiers….so no matter what Janice has sent me…they say the Federal supervised release and rules are different. My argument is that the 3 tier applies to ALL CA REGs no matter Fed Felon or State Felon. PO says REG requirements will be up to Fed. PLEASE does anyone know a real answer to all this.

What if there was no assault ?, and no intent ?, just a prosecutor , what if the victim made no mension of an assault in prelim , just the prosecutor asking the so called victim what she thought was going to happen , what she Thinks ? could have been guilty of what was ment to be trespassing , because of a sign that said for rent , and everything else was a surprise , prosecutors use intent and assault how ever they want , if no sex crime happened and there was no reason to think there would be a sex crime other than a person was there , so what gives , and another thing many of the people that can make prole early are thugs when they are doing time and I bet there be no mention of their crimes on the inside , just that they went to school , or raked the dirt on the yard , still involved in crime while locked down dose not show they are turning over a new leaf , but CO’s got their back

my question is I was pled no contest to a 288[a] lewd n lascivious in 1989 is that a violent crime per legislators etc I was 18 victim 13 any one out there kno the answer ??

is a 288a a violent crime lewd n luscious ?

California’s Prop 57 Sex Offender Release Regs Are Void, Court Rules