PROP 57 - EARLY RELEASE FOR THOSE CONVICTED OF BOTH VIOLENT AND NON-VIOLENT OFFENSES?

Here’s hoping that 2022 finds you all in good health and looking forward to new and better times.

New for 2022, January 3, to be exact, the California Supreme Court has issued a case on Prop 57 which affects when prisoners will be eligible for parole consideration.

We all know that voters have recently been approving measures that will reduce the time certain prisoners serve. This new decision addresses whether those serving time for both violent and non-violent felonies are eligible for such a reduction in time.

Mohammad Mohammad was convicted of 9 robbery and 3 receiving stolen property charges, plus some gang enhancements. He got 3 years for receiving and 26 more for the other receiving, robbery, and gang charges. 29 years total.

Prop 57 added to the State Constitution. It added Article I, section 32(a)(1), which now says that any person convicted of a non-violent felony offense and sentenced to state prison shall be eligible for parole after completing the full term for the primary offense. The question to be answered: Is defendant eligible for parole after serving the full 3-year term?

CDCR, the ones who decide whether prisoners are eligible, adopted regulations excluding from nonviolent offender early parole consideration any inmate who is currently serving a term of incarceration for a violent felony. CDCR decided Mohammad was ineligible for early parole because at least one of his terms was for a violent felony. He challenged that decision and the Court of Appeals agreed with him. They found that full term for the primary offense was the 3-year term, and excluded the enhancements, and consecutive sentences. They found the language of the Proposition to be clear and did not consider additional materials. As soon as he completes the 3-year term, he’s eligible. The Supreme Court took the case since other appellate courts had disagreed with that result.

The Supreme Court found that the language was ambiguous, and therefore considered materials presented to the voters Those materials were the official title and summary prepared by the Attorney General, the analysis by the Legislative Analyst, and the arguments in favor of and against the proposition. (Note- read the book when voting.)

Ultimately, the Supreme Court determined the ballot materials conveyed to the voters that Proposition 57 would establish parole consideration for nonviolent offenders, and would not authorize early parole consideration for violent offenders. They found that CDCR acted within its discretion when determined that individuals currently serving a sentence for a violent felony are excluded from early parole consideration.

Their Conclusion - “Neither the language of article I, section 32(a)(1) of the California Constitution nor the ballot materials presented to the voters speak directly to whether inmates with nonviolent felony convictions who are currently serving a term for a violent felony must be considered for early parole suitability. Against this backdrop, and the direction in article I, section 32(b) to promulgate regulations, the Department determined that inmates serving a term of incarceration for a violent felony should be excluded from early parole consideration. (Cal. Code Regs., § 3490, subd. (a)(5).) The Department’s approach is consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the constitutional language and the ballot materials. We cannot say that the Department abused its rulemaking authority in coming to this conclusion.

Mohammad Mohammad will serve a 29-year term.