ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (11/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings



CA Supreme Court Decision Overturns CDCR’s Prop. 57 Regulations [UPDATED 1/6/21]

[Updated 1/6/21 with new link]

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


California’s top court: Nonviolent sex offenders can qualify for early parole [ – 12/28/20]

Non-forcible sex-crimes offenders are eligible for early parole, California Supreme Court rules [ – 12/28/20]

Sex Offenders Can Qualify for Early Parole, California Court Rules [ – 12/28/20]

Sex offenders can qualify for early parole, California Supreme Court rules [ – 12/28/20]

California Supreme Court upbraids Jerry Brown on ballot measure [ – 1/5/21]


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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The court’s decision is obviously the right one. But now, will these renegade officers actually abide by it? We shall see.

@ Jack:

I suspect not. I anticipate a few will be let out as a token to show supposed compliance. They’ll find other reasons to deny parole to registrants specifically. I’m more curious if they try to explain the sheer coincidence that registrants are almost exclusively denied across the board.

Congratulations Janice and Chance. I personally am so grateful you have taken on this challenge. You bring hope to us all. Every win is cause for celebration. Many thanks for all you do.

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?

My BF is currently incarcerated and is elegible for parole since 2016, but because he will need to register once he is released he has been in there until now. This is great news! 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽

Another victory for ACSOL! Let’s give ACSOL our full support in its fight for justice!

@Roger YES Indeed-CONGRADULATIONS JANICE & CHANCE & The Board who worked and paid for this besides members !
Without you, this would of been a dead end ACLU or not.
Job Well done…with this one.
Much more 2021.and beyond.

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.

Hi Roberta, I too am outraged that computer crimes, illegal images, have landed on tier 3. Hopefully, as everything falls in place this will remedied. I cling to this hope.

@Roberta – As we have said many times, but bears repeating, ACSOL will lobby the state legislature until the unlawful images offenses (CP) are reduced from Tier 3. We are tenacious and will not give up! Please remember that ACSOL did not agree that CP offenses belong on Tier 3. The fact is we strongly disagree with that change. The decision to move CP offenses to Tier 3 was made by elected officials in a private setting without our knowledge or consent. We learned about the change at the same time the public was notified about it. Please understand that it is easier to modify an existing law (such as the Tiered Registry Law) than it is to create a new law. Finally, we hope that you and everyone who believes that CP offenses do NOT belong on Tier 3 will join us when we lobby next year to change it.

Of course, no one in their right mind would think Janice or anyone from our group would purposely twist the bill. Nevertheless, with all the passion and love and time ACSOL and Janice put into it, it was destroyed.
Our political climate, with the Qanon sex trafficking ring and a sentiment by at least half of the country to kill all Sex Offenders, having this to be enacted at this time is a death sentence for our cause. Phillip Morris and RJR decided to push not having the tobacco bill enacted rather than fighting an up hill battle. With the time it took to get this new registry bill, the time to enact and the short amount of time it took for someone to hijack it, it is a life or death matter.
Will another person hijack it? Will it be tabled over and over, and in the mean time what do we have? Hardly a way to achieve a rehabilitation certificate, a crap shoot at getting approved to get off of the registry and thousands deemed as the worst in a disgusting system of a list for the public. No one will shed a tear as we fight like hell to change the absurdity, but don’t for a minute think they won’t fight to keep people on.
For those of us who have faced violence, retaliation, vandalism and worse..take notes. Take pictures, get reports or get notes that the police would not come out. These are imperative things to get someone to listen. Our Supreme Court Justice referred to it as no more than a Costco membership. Our evidence can help, at minimum, get the law on the registry that says retaliation is unlawful, actually enforced.
I hope this makes sense to those who read this. No one wants a registry and no one wants anyone on for life. We are perhaps getting a few removed at the cost of thousands and a false sense of security for the public, with a registration system that makes absolutely no sense. No one would believe it was only a computer crime that landed a tier 3. There has to be something more and they are not showing us. That would make perfect sense because who would believe it to be any other way?
I already have the ability to file a stay and fight like hell for as long as I can. Most do not. Most are not even aware this is about to land on them. To the families with children who have been abused by family and that are not public, this is suicide.

Excellent work! Regulations void! And the court, at p 20, used cp as an example of a nonviolent offense.

Although the Department now asserts the regulations effectively exclude registerable sex offenses from the category of “nonviolent felony offenses,” the regulations at issue plainly are not focused on nonviolent felony offenses —they exclude from parole consideration an inmate convicted of any registerable sex offense, felony or misdemeanor. (Cal. Code Regs., §§3491, subd. (b)(3), 3496, subd. (b); see, e.g., Pen. Code, §§290, subd. (c)[listing offenses requiring registration, including possession of child pornography and indecent exposure], 311.11 [criminalizing possession of child pornography as a misdemeanor or felony]; 314 [criminalizing indecent exposure as misdemeanor in some cases].)

Congrats, Janice and ACSOL!

Is this the case where Janice took the mantle to take on this case? Great job!

1995 288C conviction. Threatened and provoked by wannabe undercover Informant. Almost killed said
informant circa 2003. Convicted of “violence with force by jury 2005. Thank God I got out on Parole 2008, off of Parole 2011. Harassed and Provoked everyday! God is Good…

I thought when reading the new tiered law that only if you also had a 667.5 or 1192.7 charge, you would be a tier 3. If not, you’re a 1 or a 2 depending on misdemeanor or felony. I’m kinda confused there. My offense was 20 years ago and I don’t have any prior or any aggravated enhancement.

@ New Person: Yes, that’s correct – Janice took on this case (Gadlin vs CDCR) when Gadlin’s previous lead attorney died very unexpectedly. With a very short deadline to prepare for oral arguments, Janice nonetheless clearly prevailed in those oral arguments and, ultimately, in the Justices’ unanimous decision!
Way to go, Janice!! Notorious!! 👏👏👏🤗🥳🥳

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.

Agreed. In NJ, even though those convicted of a sex crime could see the parole board, 99% were denied parole.

@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.

When will this actually go into EFFECT?. DO they have to start modifying there time now and give them a early release date or no? Does it take a few months?

@Romeo – The CA Supreme Court has ordered CDCR to rewrite their regulations implementing Prop. 57. Unfortunately, this process could take up to 12 months. On the other hand, CDCR could create a policy that temporarily fixes the problem by allowing the agency officials to immediately provide early parole consideration. If the CDCR does not act in a timely manner, we will need to file another lawsuit. By the way, a hearing is scheduled next week (Jan. 15) in another Prop. 57 case. We are waiting for the judge in that case to rule in our favor which could take place on Jan. 14 in a written preliminary decision. If such a decision is entered or a hearing is held, we will report the results of that decision or hearing on this website as soon as possible.

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 said about Prop 57

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…..

Yup. Vast majority of the public seems to think this is some Golden Wonka ticket to instantly be let out. Everyone seems to completely miss the fact that this is simply about the ability to be considered for parole release. WE all know that odds are good RC’s won’t be granted parole. Prop 57 and the lawsuit was mostly for optics of equality. Which I guess technically what matters in the end: the opportunity.

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?

@ STILL WAITING: Please be aware that the ruling only enable those incarcerated for sex offenses to be considered for early parole. The final decision is still up to the parole board – it’s not an automatic early release from incarceration.

@Still Waiting – CDCR admitted in Sacramento Superior Court last Friday (March 5) that they have not complied with the decision issued by the CA Supreme Court. Specifically, CDCR has not repealed their regulations which prohibit anyone convicted of a sex offense from early parole consideration and CDCR has
not issued new regulations. The judge in the case agreed to grant the writ of mandate ACSOL requested and required CDCR to report back within 60 days regarding what actions, if any, they have taken to comply with the CA Supreme Court’s decision. In the meantime, it is unlikely that anyone convicted of a sex offense will receive early parole consideration.

Many thanks for the update, Janice! 👍

Thank You. I appreciate YOU.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x