CA: Judge Issues Final Ruling in Prop. 57 Case


Emergency regulations, intended to implement Proposition 57 and issued by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), must be set aside, according to a final ruling released today by a Sacramento Superior Court judge. The ruling specifically stated that “CDCR cannot substitute its judgment for what it wishes the drafters of Proposition 57 had said. Nor may CDCR’s…regulations override a clear directive in the Constitution.

“Due to this ruling, CDCR’s emergency regulations issued in March 2017 cannot be enforced and new regulations must be issued. The new regulation must define “‘nonviolent’ in a manner consistent with the Constitution and the voters’ directive.”

“Today’s ruling confirms and expands upon the judge’s tentative ruling issued about a month ago,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “It is a significant victory for prisoners convicted of a sex offense.

“The lawsuit, which was filed in April 2017, focuses upon CDCR’s regulations which excluded anyone convicted of a sex offense from benefiting from  under Prop. 57. A hearing on the matter was held on February 9, 2018.

“Proposition 57 did not include an exclusion for people convicted of a sex offense,” stated Bellucci. “Therefore it was improper for CDCR to create such an exclusion in its emergency regulations.”

Today’s ruling also required Petitioner, the Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws, to prepare a formal judgment and writ for the judge’s review.

Prop. 57 is a ballot initiative approved by the public in November 2016. One part of that ballot initiative provides for early parole consideration for anyone convicted of a non-violent offense. The ballot initiative did not, however, include a definition of that term.

CA Proposition 57 early parole consideration – Final Order – March 2018 (PDF File)


California to appeal ruling on earlier sex offender parole

Noting lengthy struggles in California over the definition of a violent crime



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

That’s great news! I hope this will help many people start on the road to recovery!

Way to go Janice!!



But will this ruling open up CDCR for a lawsuit for anyone who was incarcerated during Prop 57’s implementation but was unconstitutionally disregarded for early parole?

Great job, Janice and team! You slew the giant.

Good job and thanks, Janice.

Is the State going to appeal?

Yeah, the reformers talk about reducing incarceration for only non-violent offenders. It is politically palatable to many on both sides. It is this nice offender vs bad offender strategy, that’s not going to work. It only supports the status quo, that prisons work to keep us safe. The lock them up people will just reclassify more offenses as violent. In the end the non effectiveness of ever increasing prison sentences will have to be addressesed as the real reason to release people.

Great job, Janice, Chance, and et al!!!

Wow, another great job done Janice. This should be great news to so many now in prison.

Well the way I see it, the fact that the judge said they have to define nonviolent in a ay consistent with the constitution pretty much means they’re gonna have to stick to what the law says. The voter initiative is one thing, but that’s just another. It’s done.

Janice and crew,
You guys are all unbelievably amazing! Once again, thank you so much for your incredible efforts and achievements on behalf of the registrant community!!!👍🏻

I saw today that they were collecting signatures on this already. they have a sign on the front of their desk “Keep sex offenders locked up” I, of course, didn’t sign.

And the lies continue…..

Thank you for all your hard work!!!!

You guys are amazing

It’s sad that only lies can perpetuate this unconstitutional treatment of citizens and they see as relentless as they are dense. Why can’t they open there eyes to fact?

Let me understand this correctly. My brother who has been incarcerated for 22 years for credit card fraud (a nonviolent felony) under the 3 strikes law is still ineligible from the parole process because he is required to register as a sex offender for a 288 he committed and spent 5 years in prison in 1985?

At what point is society going to quit punishing people for crimes they committed 38 years ago. Ironically he never committed another set crime so contrary to CDCR’S fallacies, not all offenders recommit sex crimes.

Someone please tell me when/if 3xer’s currently in prison for minor crimes with PRIOR sex offenses going to be eligible for parole consideration?

Finally, great job on the lawsuit. Keep up the great work and bring our loved ones home.