Lifers found suitable for parole now must overcome another hurdle for release. If they had their parole board dates advanced based on Proposition 57 credit earnings, they must wait — possibly for as long as two years or perhaps even longer — for a ruling from the Court of Appeals on the validity of their earned credits.
In a lawsuit dating from January 21, 2022, the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a victims’ rights organization, asserted the CDCR did not have the authority to award time credits based on good behavior and approved rehabilitative and educational achievements as specified in Proposition 57. In a December 13, 2023 ruling, the Sacramento County Superior Court agreed with CJLF. On January 18, the CDCR appealed.
“I earned these milestones and credits and to imagine they do nothing to get me home soon is disheartening,” resident Bruce Shocknesse said. “It is frustrating people have earned time and despite suitability cannot go home,” he added.
The outcome concerns an incarcerated person’s Minimum Eligible Parole Date, or MEPD, the earliest possible date for parole, said a Board of Parole Fact Sheet. Proposition 57 allowed the CDCR to advance an incarcerated person’s parole date through various credits, such as Milestone Completion Credits, Rehabilitative Achievement Credits, Educational Merit Credits, or Good Conduct Credits.
According to the Fact Sheet, the court order stated that the CDCR needed to stop applying Proposition 57 credits to MEPDs. The order further said that the CDCR must stop conducting parole hearings based on MEPDs advanced by Proposition 57 credits. Finally, the order instructed the CDCR to stop releasing anyone “found suitable for parole at hearings conducted on this basis.”
The CDCR’s appeal stayed — or halted — the first two parts of the ruling, allowing the CDCR to apply credits and to conduct hearings. The appeal did not stay the third part, the order that prohibited the CDCR to release anyone with an MEPD advanced by Proposition 57 credits, the Fact Sheet said.
“Many show dedication in getting into groups, which can take years,” resident Ronnie Wadell said. “Lifers are a big part of SQ community and keep the institution running smoothly. They are the backbone of rehabilitative programming and the ones serving their community. Why should they be the ones targeted?”
The Fact Sheet said that the ruling would not apply to incarcerated persons with an MEPD of May 1, 2017, or earlier, the day before Proposition 57 credits took effect. It also exempted anyone with a past Youth Parole Eligibility Date, Nonviolent Parole Eligibility Date, or Elderly Parole Eligibility Date.
Anyone found suitable with an advanced MEPD will have to wait until the resolution of the appeal, which the CDCR expects in two years, the Fact Sheet stated. Resolution could take much longer if it leads to further appeals. Until final resolution, parole grants will remain unchanged and no new parole hearings will need to take place.
The Fact Sheet indirectly cautioned that anyone with a delayed release would remain subject to Board of Parole review of any future misconduct, which might result in a referral to an en banc review and a possible rescission hearing.
“The recidivism rate for those who participate in rehabilitative programs is lower because they provide insight and coping skills,” resident Edgar Rodriguez said. “I learned on a daily basis how to change my distorted and criminal thinking behaviors from rehabilitative programs.”
Court documents obtained by the San Quentin News said the California electorate passed Proposition 57 in 2016 to decrease the prison population by adding section 32 (2) states to article I of the California Constitution. Section (2) states that the CDCR “shall have the authority to award credits earned for good behavior and approved rehabilitative or educational achievements.”
The section further provides the CDCR “shall adopt regulations in furtherance of these provisions,” and that the secretary of CDCR “shall certify that these regulations protect and enhance public safety.”
The December 13, 2023 court document said CJLF challenged regulations “codified at California Code of Regulations, title 15, sections 3043 to 3043.6. The Regulations appear in Article 3.3 of Title 15, Division 3, Chapter 1 of the Code of Regulations, under the title ‘Credits.’ Generally, the Regulations provide how inmates may earn credits toward their sentence, and thus reduce their term of incarceration. These credits are granted by the CDCR pursuant to the Regulations, as opposed to the statutory provisions granting credits. It is the alleged inconsistency between these two schemes that is the subject of the Petition.”
The court document stated that CJLF argued the validity of the regulations, calling them “inconsistent with statutes,” an “impermissible Constitutional revision” and “inconsistent with provisions of the California Constitution.”
CJLF challenged Good Conduct Credits covered under 3043.2(b)(2)(B) and 3043.2(b)(3)(B). The group challenged Milestone Completion Credit, Rehabilitative Achievement Credit, and Educational Merit Credit 3043.3(c), 3043.4(b), and 3043.5(b). CJLF further challenged credits for incarcerated persons in minimum custody covered by 3043.2(b)(5).
“Before I was chasing RAC programs, then this stuff started to stick and it became who I am,” resident Manuel Mena said.
“Programs with RAC credits provide me a new way of thinking. I know now when I need help I can ask for it. I have learned how to be a productive member in my community,” added Rodriquez.
“Education has made all the difference for my growth and accountability,” resident Hardeep Singh said. A native of India, he said the motivation for attaining a basic and higher education was rewarding because he was able to earn time off and a degree.
Finally, CJLF challenged regulations as containing language that the credits would “advance an inmate’s initial parole hearing date…. if sentenced to an indeterminate term,” covered by 3043(a), 3043.2(b), 3043.3(c), 3043.4(b), and 3043.5(b).
The court document stated, “[T]he drafters of Proposition 57 intended for [CDCR] to have broad authority over the application of conduct credits to reduce inmate sentences.”
Resident Edwin Tucker said, “It is hard to get time off. Whether someone is a lifer or not, everyone should get what they earn.”
“Every day I wake up with a thought [that] I need to go to groups and actively participate with my community, not just for credits but as a way of life,” resident Edgar Rodriguez said.
The CDCR appealed case no. 34-2022-80003807 and filed a writ that would allow CDCR to still implement credits and advance hearings accordingly. CDCR argued that Proposition 57 regulations implemented regarding prison credits were within statutory authority and consistent with Proposition 57 and are reasonably necessary to effectuate its purpose, according to court records.