The California Supreme Court today issued a unanimous decision that overturned regulations issued by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) that prohibited all registrants from benefiting from the benefits of Proposition 57. The primary benefit at issue is early consideration for parole.
In today’s decision, In re Gadlin (S254599), the Court ruled that CDCR’s current regulations prohibited early parole consideration for all registrants are void because they violate the state constitution.
“This is a significant victory for registrants who are currently in custody,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “As the result of this decision, all registrants in custody who have been convicted of a non-violent sex offense must be provided early consideration for parole.”
According to today’s decision, CDCR may no longer deny the benefits of Prop. 57 to individuals who were previously convicted of a sex offense. CDCR also may no longer deny the benefits of Prop. 57 to any individuals who is currently in custody due to a conviction for a non-violent sex offense.
In addition, today’s decision requires CDCR to issue new regulations which acknowledge those limitations. As a result, the only individuals who may lawfully be denied the benefits of Prop. 57 are those who were convicted of a violent offense, including but not limited to, a violent sex offense.
Today’s CA Supreme Court decision is consistent with nine prior decisions issued in five appellate courts. That is, all nine decisions determined that CDCR’s regulations were invalid. Some, but not all of those decisions, including the Gadlin case, applied to individuals previously convicted of a sex offense. Other decisions, including the decision in which ACSOL is the moving party, focused upon individuals whose current offense is a sex offense.
In today’s decision, the CA Supreme Court noted that early parole consideration does not guarantee early parole. The Court also noted that the Board of Parole Hearings, which grants or denies parole, can consider an individual’s complete criminal record, including sex offense convictions, during the parole process.
The impact of today’s decision is expected to affect several cases pending before the CA Supreme Court. Those cases include In re Schuster (S260024) and ACSOL v. CDCR (S261362).
CA Sup Ct – OPINION – 28 Dec 2020
Related:
California’s top court: Nonviolent sex offenders can qualify for early parole [ktla.com – 12/28/20]
Non-forcible sex-crimes offenders are eligible for early parole, California Supreme Court rules [sfchronicle.com – 12/28/20]
Sex Offenders Can Qualify for Early Parole, California Court Rules [nbclosangeles.com – 12/28/20]
Sex offenders can qualify for early parole, California Supreme Court rules [latimes.com – 12/28/20]
California Supreme Court upbraids Jerry Brown on ballot measure [ocregister.com – 1/5/21]
The court’s decision is obviously the right one. But now, will these renegade officers actually abide by it? We shall see.
Great news! Wins like this at the end of a terrible year brings much hope for a better new year. You did a great job once again Janice and Chance. However, I’m sure they will try to add more crimes as violent felonies again. Since I rarely speak to anyone or leave my house, I expect I’ll never need to benefit from this ruling.
That’s fantastic! It’s what I’ve always been telling people regarding this: this is only for the chance to go up for parole, not a guaranteed release. Why arbitrarily remove this chance?
Another victory for ACSOL! Let’s give ACSOL our full support in its fight for justice!
First, yea, a win! Next, 2 comments. The first is a curious thought on the registry. If things have to be applied equally, per this decision, then shouldn’t all felons be on a registry? Shouldn’t fairness go both ways?
Second, with the passage and then a rescinding of the flavored tobacco ban, it occurred to me that a petition can bring something up for a vote. I speak of the new registry. I understand that there is a win in those who will be able to “apply” to finally be removed. The fault and sheer evil of the law is that computer crimes are a tier 3. This is unfair not only to the registrant but to the public. The registrant, already carrying the stain of their crime, now is labeled a sexual predator and has to register every 3 months. To allow this bill to be enacted to save a few is the same theory used for the registry to exist …if we save one child, at the expense of many and no fact that it saves anyone.
Do not think that removing people from the registry will not be bombarded on the ballot sometime soon. Then we have a bill that is left that destroys everyone. I am passing this information along. I have heard that it may already be in the works, a petition to stop registrants from getting off the registry. My hope is that we seriously think about this. Less than a million true signatures will bring it up for a vote and we know it will fail and not be enacted. Then we have a shot at a decent bill. One that makes sense and causes more good than harm. One that has levels that actually make sense, keeping family crimes private for their children’s sake and on and on.
Congrats, Janice and ACSOL!
Is this the case where Janice took the mantle to take on this case? Great job!
Thank you, Janice, Chance, and all at ACSOL for your continued tenacity in fighting for the rights of all registrants and their families. This decision allows for a promising ending to an otherwise horrible year!
Feliz navidad.
Have a happy and joyous holiday season compliments of the California Supreme Court and ACSOL.
Good work Janice!!!
Janice I would have to say I’m proud also of this team accomplishment for the state of California in this teir ordeal reduction. I’m sure many are just as greatful and I hope it reverberates to all states. One even wonders if much of this registry is about language barriers or can one look at this registry as some untimely compromise as in these porno images that are talked about on this site or even the compairison of extreme’s of porn or even alcohol or drug in sexual abuse. Anything can be abusive or abrasive if taken to far yet many people on here should take action if not for yourself for others.
And yes many of you all from these view’s and comments have sort of promped me to take action in this New Year that is upon us. Sure many were foolish even myself for getting involved in much of this ordeal which could of been worse but who puts on a disguise in many of these ordeals of controversial issue.
(There may be some confusion about the subject of this lawsuit that the California Supreme Court just ruled on. This lawsuit – Galdin vs CDCR – does not pertain to California’s Tiered Registry law. This lawsuit was regarding those incarcerated individuals who are required to register being able to come before the parole board for early release consideration under California’s Prop. 57. CDCR said “No, no one who is currently incarcerated and required to register – whether for a current [non-violent] sexual offense or any past sexual offense – would be allowed to go before the parole board.” Gadlin’s attorney, Janice et alia, argued that nothing in the wording of Prop. 57 excluded early parole consideration for those required to register. [Illegal images (CP) would be relevant to this lawsuit because it is a non-violent sexual offense felony.]. The Justices unanimously agreed with Janice!)
Congratulations Janice and Chance.!
Thank you to you Janice and your team for a major victory here.
I don’t know much about the parole consideration procedures in other states than Penn but in Penn parole is considered a privilege and not a right. Any time after your minimum sentence (there is a min and max sentence structure in Penn) you can be considered for parole. Even if you are considered and do see the parole board it takes several members of the board to approve the parole if granted by those members of the board. They don’t have to parole you just because you have a parole hearing.
Even if it is a bit diff in California I would think that this ruling is basically just telling the board that they can not just skip over a registrant for consideration for parole simply because they are a registrant. This does not mean that even though the registrant will get the parole hearing does not mean they will be granted parole. I agree with a statement made by someone else above. A few will be granted parole as a token of good faith to follow the new ruling but just that and no more.
@Janice Bellucci wow very impressive
you deserve A standing ovation for this one
It was a honor meeting you back in 2017.
thank you for all you do and thank you for giving people hope.
I remember back in 2014 feeling hopeless and alone in this fight against IML then I found ACSOL A little spec of light in the darkest tunnel
I knew if had any chance of surviving this nightmare JANICE BELLUCCI was the way and iv been supporting ACSOL ever since.
Now here we are 2021 that lil spec of light in the darkest tunnel is now a burning torch 🔥
Good luck
This is somewhat of a feel-good victory, as the practical result will likely not mean any changes for those currently incarcerated. My offense was parole-eligible and when I went up, the board members were too preoccupied with their next case to even listen to what I had to say. Later, I learned from an insider that no one with sex offenses were being granted parole in my state, despite eligibility. That’s the system we have unfortunately.
Congratulations and thank you to Janice, Chance and ACSOL. Another chink has been chiseled into the pathetic armor intended to protect Lunacy. One step, one piece, one victory at a time; they are all interconnected.
I believe that it’ll be women that get these insane laws overturned. It might not happen as fast as we like, but we must continue to fight for all of us. Qanon is for tin foil hat wearing who believe everything they read.
What about Probation! Am l eligible for early release from a non-violent Probation according to Prop. 57?
I have a Probation hearing in Court on Jan. 11 at 10:00 am.
Harry 916-584-8396
Thanks Janice and team. May the Force be with you.
Thank you Janice, Chance, and everyone else who works so hard to make things right for all us who are affected daily by this injustice called the registry. Hoping for more positive changes in 2021.
California people, this is what one of your assemblymen, Jim Patterson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Patterson_(California_politician said about Prop 57
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqi_EqqbGqk
This is great news and so happy for all who will benefit. Thanks to Janice,Chance and all others who helped.
Oh no, they can’t get early consideration for parole because they’re always be after our children and we must protect them even one reoffender is high; while other convicts treat prison like a hotel in and out year after year with no outrage. Where’s the outrage when registrants are locked up beyond their time just because of residence restrictions; which does nothing for society and the people in that situation. Either way the state gets money for filing up a bed at taxpayer expense. As insanity turns…
We all know how the media twists things, but here is how I have seen this reported in various San Diego new agencies….
“Governor Brown has said prop 57 was never meant for sex offenders…”
“Thousands of sex offenders set to be released from prop 57 case”
And so on…..
This is a wonderful victory. When will CDCR follow the order of the Supreme Court and start releasing the people past their dates?They told my boyfriend it’s NOT in effect yet. Is that legal?