ACSOL argued in support of Prop. 57 yesterday before the Third Court Court of Appeals in Sacramento. At issue in the case are regulations issued by the CA Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) that exclude everyone convicted of a sex offense from receiving the benefits of that ballot proposition.
A trial court decided in favor of ACSOL’s position in March 2018 and declared that CDCR’s regulations were invalid because they impermissibly alter and amend the terms of Prop. 57. CDCR appealed that decision and the trial court’s decision was put on hold.
“During oral arguments yesterday, two of the three justices asked CDCR questions about the plain meaning of Prop. 57 and the agency’s attorney agreed that the plain meaning of Prop. 57 does not allow CDCR to exclude registrants from the benefits of that proposition,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci who argued the case on behalf of ACSOL. “CDCR argued, however, that the agency believes there is information in the voters pamphlet that authorizes the agency to create that exclusion.”
A decision in the case is expected in about 30 days. If the court decides that CDCR’s regulations are invalid, CDCR is expected to appeal that decision to the CA Supreme Court. The CA Supreme Court has already granted review in a similar Prop. 57 case, In re Gadlin, S254599.
“The main difference between the two cases is that the plaintiff in Gadlin is in custody due to a non-sex offense while the plaintiff in our case is in custody due to a sex offense,” stated Bellucci.
Also during oral arguments, both parties agreed that the Prop. 57 benefit at issue was early consideration for parole. The parties also agreed that early consideration for parole does not guarantee early release on parole.