An appellate court in California ruled today that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) must provide consideration for early parole to a registrant who is currently incarcerated for an offense that is not a sex offense in accordance with Proposition 57 (Prop. 57). The majority of the court specified, however, that its decision does not apply to those who are currently incarcerated because of a sex offense. In a concurring opinion, one of the three appellate judges stated that he believes CDCR is authorized to deny the benefits of Prop. 57 to anyone currently incarcerated because of a sex offense.
“Today’s decision will benefit thousands of individuals convicted of a sex offense long ago who are currently incarcerated,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “Unfortunately, the same decision does not provide relief to many more individuals who are currently incarcerated because of a recent sex offense.”
In addition to this case, there are eight cases pending which challenge CDCR’s regulations that prohibit all registrants from receiving benefits from Prop. 57. The cases have been filed in six counties — Sacramento, Orange, Riverside, San Joaquin, Santa Clara and San Diego. Further, there is a Prop. 57 case pending before the California Supreme Court, In re Brown-Seals, Case No. S249019, in which a registrant is challenging CDCR’s denial of Prop. 57 benefits to him. The registrant filed an informal response with the court on Oct. 1, 2018, and the court is expected to issue an Order to Show Cause early this year that could require CDCR to justify its denial.
Hmm. What to do with a corrupt judge such as that…..
Wait…
So a registrant currently incarcerated for an offense that is not a sex offense has to be considered for early release under Prop. 57. Which should make obvious sense b/c you’re punishing a past offense instead of the current offense.
But a registrant currently incarcerated for a sex offense cannot be considered for early release.
====
“Proposition 57 stated that any person convicted of a “nonviolent felony offense and sentenced to state prison shall be eligible for parole consideration after completing the full term of his or her primary offense.””
====
I thought Janice and team won this argument? I see the PDF file that was dated Feb 9, 2018.
.
.
On a tangent, I read that PDF file on Feb 9, 2018. Those arguments run akin to those registrants who were awarded the 1203.4 in 1958 case of Kelly v Municipal. Prop 57 excludes all violent felonies and PC 290 defines violent sex felonies. 1203.4 exclude certain crimes and certain sex crimes (which PC 290 also identifies who cannot be eligible for 1203.4).
In this particular case, a registrant who is incarcerated now for a new offense that is not a sex offense would be considered ineligible by the CDCR. But the ruling above states the CDCR must consider it since the crime isn’t a sex crime. PC 290 registers those who are convicted of a sex crime. But the ruling in Kelly states that PC 290 should register those who are convicted AND those who no longer are convicted no longer belong to PC 290.
California Constitution, Article 1, Section 7b states: “A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.”
Registrants should benefit from the immunities provided by Prop 57.
Registrants should benefit from the immunities provided by 1203.4, as upheld by 1958’s Kelly v Municipal decision.
US Constitution’s 14th amendment (one part of it): “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”
PC 290.007: “Any person required to register pursuant to
any provision of the Act shall register in accordance with the Act,
regardless of whether the person’s conviction has been dismissed
pursuant to Section 1203.4, unless the person obtains a certificate
of rehabilitation and is entitled to relief from registration
pursuant to Section 290.5.”
I’m getting tired of singled out of immunities that should be awarded. The level of immunities awarded are different for registrants. Any one who earns the 1203.4 can travel freely to any state without ever needing to register once their probation is successfully completed. A registrant must successfully complete probation AND wait for a minimum of 10 years (after custody) to be re-judged to be able to travel freely. (5 years contiguous living in California before applying for COR).
Prop 57 doesn’t affect me directly, but it’s just another situation where registrants are singled out again for immunities. How many more laws can be passed where everyone is being helped to become a part of society and registrants are wholly excluded for no scientific reasoning? There is an obvious pattern of hatred in the few couple of decades. It wasn’t so back in 1958. One mistake and you’re branded for life.
A registrant’s mistake is seen as a bad person. Everyone else is a person to made a bad mistake.
What ever reforms, reversals, and decisions made to any one convicted of felony or misdemeanor, you can be assured that it will NEVER apply to sex offenses. It is the one constant in the judicial system. Only the political system can change our living conditions. Judges don’t want to bother for fear of recall.
With that in mind, best wishes to those going to Sacramento on the 5th. I was going but finances precluded me from attending.
Our son is currently serving a sentence for a unrelated sex crime. In fact, the district attorney told our attorney that, “the charge would have been dropped, had he not had the sex offense on his record” So, this means that if you have an old sex offense on your record, and you get arrested for any little thing you will be certainly punished all over again. Now, he is serving a sentence of 18 months, in which he should have been released in October/November 2018 under Prop 57.
Our son was accused of violating a restraining order. Everything that he had worked for his entire life, everything that he had inherited from his grandparents, all of his work tools, furniture, coins, truck, were sold while he was in jail by his fiancé of 7 years and then she moved to another state with their 6 yr. old and we have no idea where they are.