CA Supreme Court Schedules Prop. 57 Oral Arguments on Oct. 7

The California Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments in the case, In re Gadlin (S254599), for October 7 starting at 9 a.m.  The Gadlin case is the first in a series of cases challenging regulations issued by the California Department of Corrections (CDC) that implement Proposition 57.

At issue in this case is whether CDC can deny early consideration for parole to individuals who were previously convicted of a sex offense but are currently in custody for a non-sex offense.  CDC requested review of the case after an appellate court decided that the agency’s regulations were void because they are inconsistent with the plain text of Proposition 57.

In addition to the appellate court decision in the Gadlin case, every appellate court that has considered this issue has decided that the CDC regulations are at least inconsistent with the language of Proposition 57.  The CA Supreme Court has granted review of three similar cases — In re Schuster (S260024), ACSOL v. CDCR (S261362) and In re Chavez (S263584) — which have been delayed until after the Gadlin case is decided.

The public will be have access to live-streaming of the oral arguments on October 7.  The link to that access is

ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci will represent Mr. Gadlin in the oral arguments.  She was appointed by the Court to be Mr. Gadlin’s legal representative on August 18 after his original attorney, Michael Satris, died unexpectedly of a heart attack.


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

Get them, Janice! I know you’ll kick ass!

Give them hell…

I definitely look forward to hearing the oral arguments in this case. I know Janice is going to be awesome! And hopefully the justices will be intelligent, thoughtful, use reason and logic, and be fair-minded.👍

You got this Janice!

What is a hero?……Janice Bellucci and ACSOL that is who!
Again thank you.

Good luck, Janice!

⭐⭐⭐⭐ Janice was great!!! ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
I had the pleasure of listening (and watching) today’s California Supreme Court oral arguments in the case of Gadlin v. CDCR. Janice was great. I just hope the Justices were listening and receptive to reason and facts. They certainly seemed to be. All Justices (except Justice Corrigan) asked questions, primarily of the CDCR/State’s attorney. And, by the time of their questions, it appears that the CDCR/State may be fighting an uphill battle because the Justices appeared unconvinced by the CDCR/State’s parsing of words.
The Justices could deliver their decision as soon as this week, so please everyone, cross your fingers / say your prayers /uphold your best wishes! 👍👍👍
Kudos to Janice for excellent oral arguments!!! 👏👏👏

Three cheers again for Janice! Fighting for truth and justice is based on principal and its always a type of battle. Faith can carry a person thru any ordeal one faces. While this proposition 57 argument is a great step forward their is hope for many.

Yes Janice had some challanges and I’m glad things went well in these arguments and their is light at the end of the tunnel. I’m sure folks on here should be thankful for Janice, Chance, and the whole team in all these efforts they put forth and yes persistance pays off and yes its always conforting to have God on your side. Way to go Janice.