ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (7/10 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule

ACSOL NewsCalifornia

ACSOL Argues Prop. 57 Case Before Appellate Court

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.

 

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.
    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
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.  
 
Subscribe
Notify of
2 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Consideration of parole doss not guarantee parole…well, if they want to play that way ensure parole board members are not biased and have special Council to assist/ represent release of ex sex offenders at parole boards, so that the mind set or perception of board members towards sex offenders is not looked at unfairly or influenced only in panic mode, recidivism and other troubling ways. Also the boards are going to be the oriblem like the Judges if they have all the say/leadway
other things such as conditions of parole like Chemical Castration Meds are often flagrantly portrayed as necessary and only give Certain list of problems associated with taking Lepron etc. Like Osteoporosis….Im telling you TRUTH it takes years off mens lives and for other COMPLICATIONS NOT TALKED ABOUT OR SHOULD BE RESEARCHED/DOCUMENTED..WHY …BECAUSE PRISONERS HAVE RIGHTS AND THESE DRUGS WILL DESTROY LIVES !

Great! Hopefully more and more people recognize and appreciate the work done by ACSOL representatives. It’s not easy work, you fight 1 law and 2 get passed. Gotta stick with it and keep with it.

2
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.