The California Supreme Court today listened to oral arguments in the first in a series of cases regarding the implementation of Proposition 57 by the California Department of Corrections (CDC). At issue in all of those cases is whether CDC’s regulations could lawfully exclude anyone convicted of a sex offense from its major benefit, that is, early parole consideration.
The registrant in today’s case is Gregory Gadlin who is currently in state prison after being convicted of an offense that does not require registration. However, Gadlin is required to register as a sex offender due to a conviction he suffered more than 30 years ago and therefore CDC has refused to consider him for early parole.
In addition to this case, the California Supreme Court has granted review in three additional cases with similar facts. The cases are In re Schuster (S260024), Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws (S261362) and In re Chavez (S263584). The Court has placed all three cases on hold pending their decision in the Gadlin case (S254599).
“Today the Court closely questioned CDC regarding its assertion that Proposition 57 authorizes the agency to exclude all registrants from early parole consideration,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.
Gadlin’s attorney, Janice Bellucci, argued today that the plain language of Proposition 57 provides that “any person” convicted of a non-violent offense must be considered for early parole consideration and does not allow CDC to create a “categorical exclusion” that prohibits any person or any group of people from that consideration. Bellucci also argued that CDC’s claim that “all sex offenders have an increased risk of recidivism” and “represent a risk to public safety” is factually incorrect and not supported by government or academic research. Instead, the research has found that registrants have the lowest rates of recidivism and re-offense as compared to individuals convicted of any other offense except murder.
In the Gadlin case, both the trial court and the appellate court agreed that CDC’s regulations were unlawful and ordered that they be set aside. Instead of complying with those court orders, CDC appealed the case to the Supreme Court. As a result, the orders from the lower courts were put on hold.
In every court decision regarding Proposition 57 rendered after Gadlin, the trial courts and appellate courts also ruled that CDC’s regulations were unlawful and ordered that they be set aside. Because CDC also appealed those cases to the Supreme Court, the orders from the lower courts in those cases were also put on hold.
The California Supreme Court is required to issue its decision in the Gadlin case no later January 7, 2021, which is 90 days after oral argument.
Salute!
While I don’t understand to much about this proposal or proposition 57 issue it would seem that this CDC is trying to do, or is wanting to do a double or tripple header in some three strikes your out in much of this debating and arguing for or against. Punative is a bit harsh and cruel. Now if I understand this issue right its about rebilitation and self worth and being responsiblity for oneself. A sex offense is on a different scale, isn’t it. He has paid for the sex offense. Nothing wrong with making amends.
So where does merit come into play or does a three strikes mean that the whole justice system is wrong in their prescribed understanding. One can understand if one does time for a sex offense or is put on probation or even be elligible for parole. Seems like this CDCR isn’t looking at this in the right prospective.
Seems to me its like a suppose type scenario of public safety effort. So where does humanity come in or humbliness of the state come it, or does a Governor have to interveen. While its good to pray California to me has some tough laws just like many other states. Hang in their Janice good things are on the horizon. One hopes this person gets early parole from prison in this whole ordeal.
Congrats to Janice & team to CA Supreme Ct case P-57 & for her appt to replace expired personal defendant atty! Wow, Supreme Ct Cali what an honor and workout of prep and hearings! Good Luck Atty Janice defending Civil Rights for all and plantiff. I’d better get that checkbook this may sure be costly on defense side for ct fees and filing. They will win!
Great job on calling out the government on using rhetoric rather than factual and researched statistics! Go get ’em, Janice! Good luck!
⭐⭐⭐⭐ 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, and by the tone of their questions, it appears that the CDCR/State may be fighting an uphill battle because the Justices appeared unconvinced – if not a bit annoyed – by the CDCR/State’s parsing of words.
The Justices could deliver their decision very soon, so please everyone, cross your fingers / say your prayers /uphold your best wishes! 👍👍👍
Kudos to Janice for excellent oral arguments!!! 👏👏👏
For all those in California,
I’ve been doing some research on Prop. 25 and it seems that anyone charged with a PC 290 crime would be excluded for release while they await trial.
The assessment is done per Section 1320.26 which lists PC 290 as an exclusion. Has this been amended or is it still true?
It even says so here: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1054
but it is dated 30 September 2018.
I too listened in on the oral argument on Oct 7. Janice did a great job. The attorney for the prison system was wooden in style and unable to present coherent and convincing legal arguments. It also appeared, by the nature of the justices questions, that they are leaning in our direction.
I say this as a former practicing attorney (who lost my license due to my registration offense) and who has continued to work for attorneys and been in law since graduating law school in 1984. Besides that, I am intimately familiar with the facts and legal issues of these Prop 57 cases. So I know a good presentation when I see it, and Janice’s presentation was great, and the indications from the justices were that we are likely to win.