ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (3/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings
ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18, 2021

California

CA: Appellate Court Rules in Registrant’s Favor in Prop. 57 Case

An appellate court in California ruled today that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) must provide consideration for early parole to a registrant who is currently incarcerated for an offense that is not a sex offense in accordance with Proposition 57 (Prop. 57).  The majority of the court specified, however, that its decision does not apply to those who are currently incarcerated because of a sex offense.  In a concurring opinion, one of the three appellate judges stated that he believes CDCR is authorized to deny the benefits of Prop. 57 to anyone currently incarcerated because of a sex offense.

“Today’s decision will benefit thousands of individuals convicted of a sex offense long ago who are currently incarcerated,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.  “Unfortunately, the same decision does not provide relief to many more individuals who are currently incarcerated because of a recent sex offense.”

In addition to this case, there are eight cases pending which challenge CDCR’s regulations that prohibit all registrants from receiving benefits from Prop. 57.  The cases have been filed in six counties — Sacramento, Orange, Riverside, San Joaquin, Santa Clara and San Diego.  Further, there is a Prop. 57 case pending before the California Supreme Court, In re Brown-Seals, Case No. S249019, in which a registrant is challenging CDCR’s denial of Prop. 57 benefits to him.  The registrant filed an informal response with the court on Oct. 1, 2018, and the court is expected to issue an Order to Show Cause early this year that could require CDCR to justify its denial.

In re Gadlin

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.  
 
4 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Hmm. What to do with a corrupt judge such as that…..

Wait… So a registrant currently incarcerated for an offense that is not a sex offense has to be considered for early release under Prop. 57. Which should make obvious sense b/c you’re punishing a past offense instead of the current offense. But a registrant currently incarcerated for a sex offense cannot be considered for early release. ==== “Proposition 57 stated that any person convicted of a “nonviolent felony offense and sentenced to state prison shall be eligible for parole consideration after completing the full term of his or her primary offense.”” ==== I thought Janice and team won this argument?… Read more »

What ever reforms, reversals, and decisions made to any one convicted of felony or misdemeanor, you can be assured that it will NEVER apply to sex offenses. It is the one constant in the judicial system. Only the political system can change our living conditions. Judges don’t want to bother for fear of recall.
With that in mind, best wishes to those going to Sacramento on the 5th. I was going but finances precluded me from attending.

Our son is currently serving a sentence for a unrelated sex crime. In fact, the district attorney told our attorney that, “the charge would have been dropped, had he not had the sex offense on his record” So, this means that if you have an old sex offense on your record, and you get arrested for any little thing you will be certainly punished all over again. Now, he is serving a sentence of 18 months, in which he should have been released in October/November 2018 under Prop 57. Our son was accused of violating a restraining order. Everything that… Read more »

4
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.