![]() 57, however, was the third measure supported by voters easing California’s tough-on-crime laws, after federal courts ordered the state to reduce prison overcrowding. Nor will prosecutors have access to inmates’ prison behavior records, which she called “critical to rehabilitation.” For prosecutors, this limits our ability to adequately investigate the details of the offense,” Schubert wrote. “For victims, this severely undercuts their right to be heard and to give confidential input on the inmate’s release. Police are cut out of the review process entirely. What Schubert found equally troubling was that early release decisions will be made without any public hearing and that prosecutors and victims get only 30 days to provide written objections. Writing earlier this summer in the Sacramento Bee, Schubert noted that among the 135 offenders in her county eligible for early release were gang members convicted of violent crimes and inmates with past convictions for violent offenses and others with lengthy criminal histories. More than 8,500 did just that and state prison officials are now sorting through emails and letters from crime victims, inmates, prosecutors and reform advocates. Over the summer, the public was invited to comment on just who ought to be freed. 57 as written was unclear about how it would affect convicts incarcerated for the same offense, but with differing criminal histories that would indicate a propensity and track record of re-offending. They also said the language of the measure left it unclear whether some sex crimes were included - and that a number of other violent crimes were on the list whose perpetrators would qualify for early release. 57’s definition of violent crimes was too narrow and that some crimes were not specified. Their reasons were convincing: that Prop. We also noted that the vast majority of district attorneys and top law enforcement officials in the state opposed Prop. 8, Californians, including a sizeable majority of county voters, approved Proposition 57, which allows thousands of prison inmates to apply for early release.īefore the election, this newspaper editorialized against the measure, saying that while the intention of reducing prison overcrowding was worthwhile, we had grave doubts about the law’s implementation and the vagueness in just who would be eligible for release. Ultimately, the California Supreme Court’s unanimous decision overturned the 2019 appeals court ruling, concluding that the initiative did not require the early release of violent felons.Last Nov. The Court of Appeal interpreted the measure to mean that an inmate who is serving an aggregate sentence for more than one conviction will be eligible for an early parole hearing if one of those convictions was for “a” nonviolent felony offense. The Court found that under Proposition 57, the defendant was eligible for early parole consideration even though he was also convicted and sentenced for violent offenses. The defendant appealed, and on November 26, 2019, a three-judge panel of California’s Second District Court of Appeal granted relief because the defendant had completed the full term of his primary offense. With sentencing enhancements added, the total sentence was 29 years.Īfter completing his three-year term for the nonviolent primary offense, the defendant requested early parole. The sentencing court designated one of the nonviolent felonies as the principal offense. The CDCR excluded inmates serving a sentence for a violent crime from early parole consideration.įor example, in early 2012, the named defendant pleaded no contest to nine counts of robbery (violent felonies) and six counts of receiving stolen property (nonviolent felonies). Proposition 57 left it to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to devise the rules to determine which inmates qualified for early release. Ultimately, sentencing courts have the authority to decide which crime to designate as the primary offense. Voters were told that Proposition 57 permitted early parole eligibility for state prisoners “convicted of a nonviolent felony offense” after completing the full term of their primary offense. In 2019, a California appeals court held that Proposition 57 allowed those convicted of multiple violent and nonviolent crimes to qualify for early release after serving only the sentence for one of the nonviolent crimes. The California Supreme Court found that the language in Proposition 57 was ambiguous and, upon reviewing ballot materials, concluded that the initiative did not require the early release of violent felons. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |