View Full Version : Cdcr: Early Release Of Inmates


Kathy
02-23-2007, 01:23 AM
RECEIVED FROM TIPS

February 22, 2007

PERIODIC UPDATE

CDCR: EARLY RELEASE OF INMATES

The Governor and Secretary Jim Tilton just held a press conference at the Capitol. Their announcement was that in order to comply with federal court orders to reduce inmate population, the Department of Corrections is considering the early release of non-violent offenders, as well as other alternatives.

For further reading, you can visit the TiPS website (http://www.forpublicsafety.com/)

Imani
02-23-2007, 04:48 AM
The Governor and Secretary Jim Tilton just held a press conference at the Capitol. Their announcement was that in order to comply with federal court orders to reduce inmate population, the Department of Corrections is considering the early release of non-violent offenders, as well as other alternatives.

WOW! Hope this will come to pass,as far as early releases.

MattsmominNY
02-23-2007, 09:46 AM
I just saw this story in the Sacramento Bee ... but I can't post a link to the story until after I have made 25 posts here :confused:



I truly hope they let out the low level, and all the others who shouldn't be there, or who have been in plenty long enough. And do away with parole altogether, except for extreme cases.

LeBeau
02-23-2007, 10:10 AM
Here's the Sacramento Bee article (http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/127732.html) and the text of yesterday's press conference with Arnie (http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/speech/5491/)

Morris1
02-23-2007, 11:17 AM
Personally I believe that they need to release all the non-violent, parole violators (non violent violations) sick and elderly. Once they do this, the pressure will be off. Most of the overcrowding is Level 1 and 2. Then they need to revamp the parole system, put a sentencing commission in place and fix the sentencing guidelines in this state. Sentences need to fit the crimes. Get rid of these new laws that only create more law enforcement jobs and cost the state billions of extra tax dollars. They could easily reduce the percentages on many doing 85% and it would cause no harm to the public. I would also like to see them offer Military service to many of these young men. They need direction in their lives. They can pay their debt by serving their country. My son would have taken that in a heartbeat. I would also like to see the Governor make a deal with large manufacturing corporations through-out the state to take on training and hiring of parolees. The reason many go back is that they can't find employment. Give them a tax break. It's all about money. Done! No more overcrowding. See how easy. I should be Governor!

Morris1

MattsmominNY
02-23-2007, 11:26 AM
you have my vote!!!!!!

Morris1
02-23-2007, 11:29 AM
Thank you for your support.... Ha. Ha.

Morris1

MomC
02-23-2007, 12:10 PM
Thanks Morris1....I wish you had a direct line to the brains of these people in charge who don't seem to understand your common sense approach. I also think its a waste of tax payer money to put them into prison and pay for them to sit there when they could be helping our country as you mentioned in the service and even closer - put more in fire camps where they can provide a service to our state

JLS
02-23-2007, 12:16 PM
The overcrowding is on the level 3 and level 4 yards. The CDCR has empty MSF ( level 1) beds because there are not enough inmates that qualify for minimum custody.

Luvly143
02-23-2007, 12:26 PM
JLS is most definately correct. My husband says level 1 and 2 inmates are transferring out of reception to mainline every day. The way my husband put it to me is like this, someone is always going home from level 1 or 2 yard so there are always empty beds. The level 3 and 4 yards are getting full with lifers and those with long sentences. If someone is on a level 3 or 4 yard they would more than likely not qualify as someone who would be eligible for early release.

Imani
02-23-2007, 12:27 PM
The overcrowding is on the level 3 and level 4 yards. The CDCR has empty MSF ( level 1) beds because there are not enough inmates that qualify for minimum custody.

Sense the overcrowding is on the level 3 and 4 yards,what are they going to do with those inmates and the level 1 and 2? Are they going to move the low level inmates to CCF's if there is room for them? This is all so crazy and confusing to me.

Kathy
02-23-2007, 12:29 PM
Hey Morris1, I LOVE THAT IDEA! My grandson just went into the Army and after 6 months he NOW knows what his BIG UNCLE has been through in a SMALL SENSE! He understands the scale for his Uncle is 100 times worse but he also feels the pain of being away from home and loved ones and how IMPORTANT the letters and CALLS are! AMAZING is the fact I have 2 away from home. Both depend on my LOVE AND CALLS AND LETTERS AND PACKAGE's. One serving the Country the other paying for his Crime. Both have the same living settings the only difference is one is behind bars. Both can't shit or eat unless someone tells them they can.

YES JLS, it is Level 3 and 4 yards that are overcrowded. I see them letting those with 1 yr or less VIOLENT Or NOT just to easy the Overcrowding and the GOV will say "THEY ARE GETTING OUT ANYWAY" That is find with me! Sentencing has gone extreme in most cases!

SO, LET IT ROLL GOV! I WANT MY BOY HOME!

Morris1
02-23-2007, 12:42 PM
OK. Now I am a little confused. The overcrowding in all the documentation "Little Hoover Report" and such specify parole violations and non-violent areas of the prisons are the ones in the gyms and hallways. My son is a level 3 at Ironwood and there is no overcrowding on the higher levels. He is 2 to a cell. It exists on the mosty 2 yard I believe. Maybe it depends on the facility. From what my son told me about reception, Delano it was like sardines. Many are transferring out but equally or more keep transferring in. Wasn't the Chino riot not too long ago a lower level? That was my understanding. Someone who knows that prison please comment.


Morris1

Imani
02-23-2007, 12:58 PM
OK. Now I am a little confused. The overcrowding in all the documentation "Little Hoover Report" and such specify parole violations and non-violent areas of the prisons are the ones in the gyms and hallways. My son is a level 3 at Ironwood and there is no overcrowding on the higher levels. He is 2 to a cell. It exists on the mosty 2 yard I believe. Maybe it depends on the facility. From what my son told me about reception, Delano it was like sardines. Many are transferring out but equally or more keep transferring in. Wasn't the Chino riot not too long ago a lower level? That was my understanding. Someone who knows that prison please comment.


Morris1

I think that the riot at Chino was on a low level yard,these days that don't mean nothing. When my friend got moved to Susanville from N.K.S.P they housed him on a level 3 yard before he got moved and he was classified as level 1.

Luvly143
02-23-2007, 01:16 PM
I'm pretty sure the last big riot in Chino was in reception center west... The reception center has inmates of all levels housed together... Chino is extremely overcrowded... The last time my husband was there (March 2006) he got sent to the hole (Palm Hall) the day he got there because there was a riot. Chino is usually off the chain compared to the other reception centers... I also read the Little Hoover Commission Report and it did seem to describe the overcrowding the way you are saying. But I have to say my husband who has lots of experience with this really made me see things logically when he said that most level 3 and 4 inmates aren't going anywhere soon. So what JLS is saying makes sense...

bears baby
02-23-2007, 02:40 PM
Morris ,
you have my vote!

Imani
02-23-2007, 02:43 PM
JLS is most definately correct. My husband says level 1 and 2 inmates are transferring out of reception to mainline every day. The way my husband put it to me is like this, someone is always going home from level 1 or 2 yard so there are always empty beds. The level 3 and 4 yards are getting full with lifers and those with long sentences. If someone is on a level 3 or 4 yard they would more than likely not qualify as someone who would be eligible for early release.

Then, the problems is with sentencing reform and the 3 strikes law. Like I mentioned on here once before when something like a 3 strikes law comes on a ballot vote it down, don't complain after the fact when you didn't go out to vote the first place. We do have the power as voters. My 2 cents

FaithHeals
02-23-2007, 02:51 PM
Unfortunately for me, the only way my husband would be coming home any sooner is if they finally do what the rumors have been saying for the last few years and reduce the 85% mandatory time down to a lesser amount. He's level 3 with 11 years to go, I know he wouldn't be one of the ones up for early release otherwise. :(

Stephanie

Luvly143
02-23-2007, 02:56 PM
They can't lessen the 85% mandatory time unless they change the penal code... Which is very unlikely...

Morris1
02-23-2007, 03:10 PM
My son was telling me just last week-end that there are guys that are about to drop points that would put them on a 2 yard so they get into trouble on purpose to pick up the points that will keep them on the 3 yard. It is much safer. The 2 yards are the bunkbed mess and anyone can get to you and the guards can see very little. You have to keep one eye open when you sleep.

Morris1

Luvly143
02-23-2007, 03:29 PM
The 3 and 4 yards house inmates in cells not dormitories so that makes sense Morris... But it seems funny that any inmate would be scared to go to a lower level yard :) You know what surprises me? When I go and visit at NKSP I visit my husband who is in general population... So we visit on a seperate side, our side never gets too crowded...But I can't help but notice there are a WHOLE LOTTA PC's!! I mean the PC visiting side fills up fast... Now lots of prisons are converting whole yards in to SNY to accomodate the growing "protective custody" population. I wonder what affect this is having on the bed issue. With lots of inmates being transferred out to other prisons etc. to make room for all the PC's.

Morris1
02-23-2007, 03:30 PM
Anyone who wants to do some research on overcrowding check this out. I think we are all right. Overcrowding is just everywhere.

Morris1

http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/ReportsResearch/OffenderInfoServices/WeeklyWed/TPOP1A/TPOP1Ad070214.pdf

4evernluv
02-23-2007, 06:33 PM
Does anyone know how many inmates they need to release in order to relieve enough of the over crowding so that there will not be a threat of Federal takeover?

cadustin
02-23-2007, 10:22 PM
I do not know how many for the federal not to take over, but the prisons were designed to hold approximately 90,000 +- inmates and we have over 173,000! They have only sent to date about 300 inmates out of state. So, they have a long way to go. But my understanding is they do not have to have the prisons all within a certain amount, they just have to have a plan in action to start reducing.

Does anyone know how many inmates they need to release in order to relieve enough of the over crowding so that there will not be a threat of Federal takeover?

joseandmelany1
02-24-2007, 02:22 AM
My son was telling me just last week-end that there are guys that are about to drop points that would put them on a 2 yard so they get into trouble on purpose to pick up the points that will keep them on the 3 yard. It is much safer. The 2 yards are the bunkbed mess and anyone can get to you and the guards can see very little. You have to keep one eye open when you sleep.

Morris1Morris I totally agree with you here!!! My husband was explaining this very thing to me a couple of weekends ago. It really surprised me, I thought a lower level would be better but I guess not. He also said he was glad he was not in a dorm anymore for that same reason. His points have dropped but the counselors are so overworked that they have not given him a reveiw and probably won't do so since he has only about 10 months left.

GigiSoto
02-24-2007, 11:37 AM
Hello everyone . I wanted to know if anyone would like to help me out with an index and numbers so i could update a letter. I wrote this only on my experience so i'm sorry if your situation isnt included. Feel free to write your story.
Thanks,
Gigi

Good afternoon,

I am contacting you with possible ideas for an issue that everyone knows needs to be addressed regarding prison overcrowding/reform

I have a family member who is currently incarcerated at Avenal State Prison and was sentenced to 10 years 8 months. Now this is the interesting! In court he accepted a sentence of a little over 3 years, but by the time our family walked out of the court room his time dramatically increased. How you might ask yourself? Well let me explain and then you will have a big answer to WHY our prisons are so over populated. The 3 years he accepted doubled because it was his second strike (let me add that this was a NON-VIOLENT OFFENCE), then there was a year for ever time PRIOR that he was in prison which was 3 time (all non-violent). So now we are up to over 9-10 years. This is just one example which happens to be the case for my family. But it is unfair to these men and women not to add their family members.

These men and women that are incarcerated continue to be placed in our prisons for the present crimes that they are charged for PLUS for past prior charges that they already did their time for. Almost sounds like Double Jeopardy. So now a man, a husband, a father is in prison for a non-violent crime that was originally 3 years is now doing 10 years. Is this fair? I think not. Now this is only one case, how many other cases like this are in our prisons? Can you see now one of the major reasons why our prisons are overflowing? I'm not saying that these men and women should receive a "Get Out Of Jail Free Card" but there is no reason why they are doing more time for past crimes. Does that seem right? I do understand that our District Attorneys or primarily our first line of defense but I also understand that they are not as concerned as they should be regarding California ’s prison overcrowding. This is an issue that I truly believe needs to be looked at and addressed.

Here are some possible ideas that would dramatically decrease the prisons without making civilians feel a threat:


Inmates that are incarcerated for non-violent crimes that are to serve 85% change to 65%.

Inmates that are incarcerated that have had time doubled (striking a strike) for a non-violent offense and are in a trade or have show to be rehabilitated, let them go in front of counsel for time deduction or early release.

An inmate could only be given 1 prior prison enhancement at the time of sentencing by court (plea bargains), not 1 for every prior conviction. Thank you for your time.

Morris1
02-24-2007, 11:49 AM
Gigi- There are literally thousands of young men in prison for exactly what you are saying. I don't understand why legislators refuse to really look at how we sentence. None of us believe anyone should get off scott free. We just want punishments to fit their crimes. Is that too much to ask. They really need a sentencing board to take case by case and make some changes. It may take a little while to get through them all, but they can do it. I don't know how easy it would be to change the 85% rule because it was voted in, however I have seen in the past that these laws can be ruled unconstitional by a court. They did that with prop 187 I think it was 10 years or so ago.
The powers that be can do it if they really want to. The 85% rule is an absolute trap.

I have written many letters to legislators.

Morris1

cadustin
02-24-2007, 11:29 PM
My husband was looking at 65 to life, then 9 years 8 months and plead to 28 months. How he got 28 months though was an original sentence of 8 months, doubled and a year added for admitting to a prior. AND has to do 80% of the time. Now, in a normal world, he would have gotten 8 months and done 1/2 of that. So, instead of doing 4 months he is doing more than 22. I think even if they did something as simple as, if you are a repeat offender then maybe make you do 80% of the time, and violent offenses keep at 85%, but as for giving more original time just because you are a repeat offender to me does fall into the did the crime, did the time, ALREADY! That would eleviate the overcrowding!

LuzGonzalez1971
02-25-2007, 12:19 AM
My husband was sentenced for committing perjury by declaration. He filed for custody of his daughter from a previous relationship and his statements did not match the mother's statements...etc...Prison time for perjury is 2, 3 or 4 years and he got the mid-term of 3 years BUT because he has a prior strike from 1990 it DOUBLED to 6 years at 80%!!!!! THIS IS TOTALLY UNJUST!! Th strike was from an assualt and battery charge when he punched someone in the jaw for pulling a knife on his friend and he has lived a crime free life since then. We have a son and are a very close family...we were together everyday since we met in 1997 BUT they shipped him away to Avenal so I see him once a month if that because he is SO far away and it is SO expensive to go up there!!! Our son is DEVASTATED!!! From the minute he was born he had never spent a DAY away form his Dad until he was sent away to prison for this perjury charge....We are a broken family now....

Charlie2
02-25-2007, 01:46 AM
I think the year for every prior is crap. My man would be out by now if it wasn't for that. The sentencing laws in the state definately need to be addressed. His crimes have NEVER been violent. I have to be honest, I sit back in awe of what all is going on in this state with the prison overcrowding, parole reform, and sentencing laws. I get excited at the possibility that my man may come home early, yet I am afraid to get my hopes up. )-: I am constantly searching the internet for any info about it and just pray that something is finally done. There are guys in there that have done their time-yet they stay there under a third strike-non violent. This state is a mess...I pray alot that they do the right thing and change the laws and bring some loved ones home!!

KCampbell
02-25-2007, 09:59 AM
It seems from everything I have read, Arnold's speeches, the California Performance Review, the TIPS site etc, I get out of it the following;

On May 1st 2007, Arnold is going to announce which of the idea's from all of the above sources they will attempt to implement.

That they will have one year from that date to implement their plan.

It seems Arnold is more intent on freeing up bed space by, trying to transfer as many of the 40,000 illegals in custody in California to either out of State private institutions, or transfers back to their native countries on Prisoner exchange treaties - to complete their sentence.

CDC has over 3100 inmates 60 years old or older, and 3700 between 55-59, a plan to include releasing some of these.

Then there are over 90000 serving time for non-violent offences. Alot of the advice is a reduction in their time, examples being a reduction of time for completing drug or vocational training. (A possible 180 day reduction, for each program completed). Further reductions for completing a 2 year college degree.

Arnold seems intent on building 2 new prisons, however in listening to his speeches, and reading his statements, he states to have an open mind on this issue.

Everything will be a rumor until they make their announcement officially.

LoneStarState
02-25-2007, 10:04 AM
My fingers are crossed! :) :)

ca_inmate_lvr
02-25-2007, 10:39 AM
:( :mad: My baby would have been home if it weren't for the enhancement. He was sentenced to 1 year, got another year added for prior conviction. So he got 2 years with half. That should have been 1 year with half, which would have meant he would be home. ARG........:angry: :argh: :blah: :mad: :fb:

:confused: I mean haven't they already been sentenced and did their time for prior sentences? :confused: How can they be punished twice for something......isn't that against the law???????? Just because they put a different name on it doesn't mean it isn't "DOUBLE JEOPARDY!"

Just my two cents!!!!!!!!!!!:twocents:

Froggyz Girl:love:

cadustin
02-25-2007, 11:16 AM
In reading Robbreid's reply... It doesn't seem to me that just because you are a senior citizen now you might be released. I honestly think it should depend on your crime and how long you have been in. As for the illegal aliens, yes, ship them back to where their home country is and let their government deal with them. We have to stop and think too, if we start letting the older people out and they do not have family or any place to go or any support, are we doing them and the community justice? If they have been in prison for a long time, they cannot even collect social security. I honestly think if the governor changes the laws a little to reflect on the 3rd strike law, then he will definitely reduce the overcrowding considerably! If you take all the men and women who have been affected by the 3rd strike law and give them a normal sentence, most of them would be home. As for sending these guys out of state, California is still responsible for them. How about this, if an inmate's last legal residence is in another state, then ship them off to one of their prisons. That way when they get out, they are home and California has not flipped the bill from someone coming here basically just to commit a crime here.

There are so many changes they can do. These things will reduce the overcrowding issues facing us right now, but we are still faced with the huge return ratio. There has got to be something done to help as many of these men and women return to society and get their lives back and be productive law abiding citizens! Programs set up to help them succeed, not fall flat on their *&% and go right back in where it is "safe" and "easier". Just my opinion.

Morris1
02-25-2007, 11:19 AM
The voters of this state are the ones who need to get their heads out of their you know whats!!! Until they stop the knee jerk legislation that has lead to 3 strikes, gun enhancements, gang enhancements, Jessicas Law and of course Determinate Sentencing to start with, we will continue to spiral out of control and lock up the population of California. When there is no one to re-butt statements on our Televisions to show people the truth about our laws no one will understand what really happens until they have a run in with the law.
When Arnold can spend millions of dollars on TV ads like he did to stop Prop 66 (to fix 3 strikes) it makes it hard. You have to have deep pockets for TV time. People unfortunately would rather not spend time researching the truth, they would rather listen to lies on TV ads. Very frustrating.

Everyone that follows Prison Talk needs to write their Congress people and Senators along with the Governor. Don't wait for someone else to do it. We have to let our legislators know our dissatisfaction. They can't keep ignoring us.

California is heading for bankrupcty again. Arnold paints a pretty picture but they will not be collecting what they thought from us this year or the next. People are losing their homes left and right and property taxes are not being paid. They already had that money spent. That's billions of dollars they won't be getting.

That is good for our inmates because Arnold may not be able to sell his bond issues again. The counties are already fighting over who is getting the bond monies we just voted on. Apparently it is a big mess at the moment.

Morris1

cadustin
02-25-2007, 11:28 AM
Morris1, I did write a letter to the governor, but I do want to know who else to write to. If you have any information or leads, please let me and everyone else know. I just don't really know where to begin looking for the names and titles of the people I should be writing. You do seem to know more than most on this subject. Thank you!!

The voters of this state are the ones who need to get their heads out of their you know whats!!! Until they stop the knee jerk legislation that has lead to 3 strikes, gun enhancements, gang enhancements, Jessicas Law and of course Determinate Sentencing to start with, we will continue to spiral out of control and lock up the population of California. When there is no one to re-butt statements on our Televisions to show people the truth about our laws no one will understand what really happens until they have a run in with the law.
When Arnold can spend millions of dollars on TV ads like he did to stop Prop 66 (to fix 3 strikes) it makes it hard. You have to have deep pockets for TV time. People unfortunately would rather not spend time researching the truth, they would rather listen to lies on TV ads. Very frustrating.

Everyone that follows Prison Talk needs to write their Congress people and Senators along with the Governor. Don't wait for someone else to do it. We have to let our legislators know our dissatisfaction. They can't keep ignoring us.

California is heading for bankrupcty again. Arnold paints a pretty picture but they will not be collecting what they thought from us this year or the next. People are losing their homes left and right and property taxes are not being paid. They already had that money spent. That's billions of dollars they won't be getting.

That is good for our inmates because Arnold may not be able to sell his bond issues again. The counties are already fighting over who is getting the bond monies we just voted on. Apparently it is a big mess at the moment.

Morris1

Morris1
02-25-2007, 02:05 PM
Cadustin-

The ones I have written to are:

The Governor- http://gov.ca.gov At the bottom there is a contact site.

Senators Nunez, Perata, Romero. They are the main ones dealing with the prison issue.
Senators: http://senate.ca.gov gives you the list of all CA Senators. They all should be written.

Assemblymen--One that needs writing to by everyone is Michael Villines. He really wants to keep things the way they are. He's a lock em up and throw away the key guy and he has a big voice in this for some reason. He needs letters and stories from all of us. I don't believe he sees what really happens in sentencing. He needs a shake up wake up call.

http://www.assembly.ca.gov

You can go to all these sites and get the addresses for all. It's time consuming but we need to do it. They need to understand that they really don't know what the people of this state want. Punishments that fit the crimes. Now is the time when all is up in the air. At least write to the Assemblymen in your District if nothing else. Make sure you write to the Senators I listed if not all of them, plus the Senator of your District.

Morris1

cadustin
02-25-2007, 10:49 PM
Thank you Morris1, I knew you would have a good direction. I have another idea, what if we start a thread with everyone who wants to write their letter then send them all like at the end of the month or in a couple weeks or something, would that help? I am going to start another letter now to get it out soon!

nitamac
02-25-2007, 11:54 PM
Personally I believe that they need to release all the non-violent, parole violators (non violent violations) sick and elderly. Once they do this, the pressure will be off. Most of the overcrowding is Level 1 and 2. Then they need to revamp the parole system, put a sentencing commission in place and fix the sentencing guidelines in this state. Sentences need to fit the crimes. Get rid of these new laws that only create more law enforcement jobs and cost the state billions of extra tax dollars. They could easily reduce the percentages on many doing 85% and it would cause no harm to the public. I would also like to see them offer Military service to many of these young men. They need direction in their lives. They can pay their debt by serving their country. My son would have taken that in a heartbeat. I would also like to see the Governor make a deal with large manufacturing corporations through-out the state to take on training and hiring of parolees. The reason many go back is that they can't find employment. Give them a tax break. It's all about money. Done! No more overcrowding. See how easy. I should be Governor!

Morris1

A men Morris1

Aliwant24
02-26-2007, 01:46 AM
I will write whoever i need to write!! My hubby is serving 3 years 8 months. For his crime he got 8 months. Then he got a 3 year enhancement. He has NEVER been convicted of a violent crime and has NO STRIKES. But, he has prison priors. ALL drug related. He is an addict and has asked SEVERAL times for a drug program or something, even when he was out, he asked his parole officer for a program. No can do. He unfortunately, got the affiliated label back in 1998 and has been a SHU resident ever since. Yes, he put himself there, yes he commited the crime, yes he should pay for that crime. My thing is..... I know there are thousands out there just like him. They would rather lock him up, then try to rehabilitate him to help keep him out! He sits in the SHU, they release him with no transition and expect him to function in society! I also disagree with SHU inmates not being able to get bridge credits for education. I understand them not being able to work, but they can study in their cells. They do not need to have group classes! I also agree that enhancements are the same as double jeopardy. They paid for their crimes, only until they committed another one? Does not make sense, at least make them concurrent or something. I guess I am just a little bitter because without that stupid enhancement, he would be coming home soon.

So, here we sit... he is in RC waiting for a SHU bed to come available... he has been in RC for 2 months now, they have not even given him an expected release date. And wishing for a miracle of early release :)

GigiSoto
02-26-2007, 02:44 AM
Morris1,
I too have written to almost all of the California’s senators my letter that i posted earlier. I would really like some of you to email your situations, comments, and ideas to me:grouphug: . I could print them out, make copies, and start mailing them out.... plus forwarding them in emails. I know it is so frustrating. I talked to my husband and both cried because he will miss our 15 year old graduation by 2 weeks and has spent most of our sons life watching him grow from behind bars. (he was going through his photo album:cry:) Anyone that has
If anyone that has actual numbers or links with information on how many inmates etc. that would be very helpful too.
Take care and good night,
Gigi

Morris1
02-26-2007, 09:16 AM
Gigi- If you go back to my Feb. 23 post on this thread their is a web address their for inmate population. It was very interesting. That stinks that he will miss your sons graduation. That is an important time.

Morris1

Morris1
02-26-2007, 09:19 AM
Rhonda- Do they actually release guys directly from the SHU? If that is so they really do set them up for failure. No step down program. No drug program. Boy they just continue to make huge mitakes. The fact that that he asked for help with his addiction and was turned down is amazing to me.

If they do change the system I know that was one of the main changes. Offering drug addiction rehab.

Morris1

Patrickj
02-26-2007, 12:41 PM
Along with writting the Govenor your Senator and Assembly person register so that you know what i going on with certain bill that are of interest to you. You would be suprised som of the changes that take place onthese bills before they become law, how some members of the senate will say one thing and vote another way on the bill.
Sometimes my email looks like I am runing for eleced office with all the emails from Sacramento lol. If they hear enough from people they will listen or come reelection fight against them.

Morris1
02-26-2007, 03:40 PM
Patrick. Do you mean that politicians talk out of both sides of their mouths. Gasp!!! I'm shocked!! LOL

Patrickj
02-26-2007, 03:59 PM
Patrick. Do you mean that politicians talk out of both sides of their mouths. Gasp!!! I'm shocked!! LOL


That's not all they talk out of either. I have politicans in my family. But me being the black sheep of the family they wish not to be seen with me. That is their loss not mine.

JERRYSGIRL05
02-26-2007, 05:46 PM
hi everyone. my husband is a level 3 right now but soon to be level 2 in may or june. he does his program, has no write-ups, has a job with a paynumber, does very well in there and has even been told many times he dont belong there. hes been there now almost 3 years and is in wasco just north of bakersfield. does anyone know if he would qualify for early release being that he will be dropped a lower level? just hoping and praying he will come home soon. god works miracles and we we continue to keep our faith. thanks! dolores :)

loving my indian till my last breath! aaaahhhhhh!

JERRYSGIRL05
02-26-2007, 06:14 PM
oh yeah and by the way, my man still has 6 years to go and it was considered a violent crime although he didnt hurt anyone. he went down for someone else and now is doing the time. the other guy did most of the crime but got probation for pointing the finger. anyway, we still continue to pray for any miracles for an early release. thanks for all your help! dolores :)

Aliwant24
02-27-2007, 01:19 AM
Morris.... They did not put him in any step down program at all. Maybe his case is different. But last time he got out, it was rough for a couple of months. He would get social anxiety real bad, we had to avoid crowds at times. He was just kinda lost. I am also amazed that he could not get a program even when he asked. I have never done the drug and cannot relate to his addiction, so I can only help so much. I do know that him admitting he has a problem is the first and most important step. He did that and they still would not help. It is very frustrating.

Jerrysgirl.... since early release is only a thought right now, there is no qualification for it. Early release is just a hope and dream for most of us at this point in time. But, I do know that if he has the "Violent Crime" label, he will not get out early, the public would have a fit! :(

Morris1
02-27-2007, 01:37 PM
Well I do hope that the Rehab part gets fixed this time around. The sad part about everything is that people just don't care about people anymore. People are tired of drug addicted people. Why do they do drugs. No one seems to know the answer.

Personally I think we need another flood! Start over again.

Morris1

GigiSoto
02-27-2007, 05:23 PM
Here is some information that i received today:

Matt Gray wrote:

This would require that if the current felony is non-serious and non-violent, that the enhancement would be rolled-back to as if there was only 1 prior offense. This would not apply if the current offense is a specified drug offense, a felony sex offense, involved the use of firearms or deadly weapons, or involved great bodily injury, or if any of the prior offenses was a sexually violent offense, any of certain sex offenses involving a child, homicide, or a serious or violent felony punishable by life imprisonment or death.

FYI


In bill text the following has special meaning
underline denotes added text
struck out text denotes deleted text

2007 CA A 1133
AUTHOR: Dymally
VERSION: Introduced
VERSION DATE: 02/23/2007


ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1133============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ===INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Dymally
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ===FEBRUARY 23, 2007

An act to amend Sections 667, 667.1, 1170.12, and 1170.125 of, and to add Section 1170.126 to, the Penal Code, relating to sentencing.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

AB 1133, as introduced, Dymally. Sentencing: three strikes.:

Existing law, as amended by initiative statutes, and commonly referred to as the "three strikes" law, provides for various sentencing enhancements for persons convicted of one or more felonies and who have one or more prior felony convictions for felonies defined as either "serious" or "violent." Existing law provides that for a conviction of a felony with one prior conviction for a serious or violent felony the determinate term or minimum term for an indeterminate term shall be twice the term otherwise provided as punishment for the current felony conviction. Existing law provides that a person convicted of a felony who has 2 prior convictions for a serious or violent felony is subject to an indeterminate term of life with a minimum term of the greatest of 3 times the term otherwise provided, 25 years, or the other applicable term.

This bill would provide that if the current felony is not a serious or violent felony the person would be sentenced to the enhancement under the 3 strikes provisions that is applicable to a person with one prior conviction. These provisions would not apply if the current felony is a drug offense, a felony sex offense, involved the use of firearms or deadly weapons, or involved great bodily injury, or if any of the prior offenses was a sexually violent offense, any of certain sex offenses involving a child, homicide, or a serious or violent felony punishable by life imprisonment or death.

The bill would provide a procedure for qualified persons to file a writ of habeas corpus for the purpose of being resentenced to a lesser sentence pursuant to the provisions of the bill. The bill would make other technical amendments.

The bill would provide that it would become effective only when submitted to, and approved by, the voters.

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. This act shall be known, and may be cited as, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2006.

SEC. 2. The Legislature finds and declares the following:

(a) Proposition 184 (the "Three Strikes" law) was overwhelmingly approved in 1994 with the intent of protecting law-abiding citizens by enhancing the sentences for a repeat offender who had committed serious or violent felonies, or both.

(b) Proposition 184 did not apply exclusively to enhance the sentences for serious or violent felonies committed by repeat offenders with prior convictions for serious or violent felonies.

(c) Proposition 184 did not establish reasonable criteria for limiting criminal acts that would be prosecuted as third strikes.

(d) Since its enactment, Proposition 184 has been used to enhance as third strikes, thousands of crimes committed by recidivists that were not serious or violent felonies, or both, at an excessive annual cost to taxpayers.

(e) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this measure to protect the people from repeat offenders who continue to commit serious or violent felonies, and to continue to provide greater punishment for those previously convicted of serious or violent felonies, or both, while providing reasonable criteria for felonies that may be prosecuted as third strikes.

SEC. 3. Section 667 of the Penal Code is amended to read:

667. (a) (1) In compliance with subdivision (b) of Section 1385, any person convicted of a serious felony who previously has been convicted of a serious felony in this state or of any offense committed in another jurisdiction which includes all of the elements of any serious felony, shall receive, in addition to the sentence imposed by the court for the present offense, a five-year enhancement for each such prior conviction on charges brought and tried separately. The terms of the present offense and each enhancement shall run consecutively.

(2) This subdivision shall not be applied when the punishment imposed under other provisions of law would result in a longer term of imprisonment. There is no requirement of prior incarceration or commitment for this subdivision to apply.

(3) The Legislature may increase the length of the enhancement of sentence provided in this subdivision by a statute passed by majority vote of each house thereof.

(4) As used in this subdivision, "serious felony" means a serious felony listed in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7.

(5) This subdivision shall not apply to a person convicted of selling, furnishing, administering, or giving, or offering to sell, furnish, administer, or give to a minor any methamphetamine- related drug or any precursors of methamphetamine unless the prior conviction was for a serious felony described in subparagraph (24) of subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7.

(b) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, to ensure longer prison sentences and greater punishment for those who commit a felony and have been previously convicted of serious and/or violent felony offenses.

(c) Notwithstanding any other law, if a defendant has been convicted of a felony and it has been pled and proved that the defendant has one or more prior serious and/or violent felony convictions as defined in subdivision (d), the court shall adhere to each of the following:

(1) There shall not be an aggregate term limitation for purposes of consecutive sentencing for any subsequent felony conviction.

(2) Probation for the current offense shall not be granted, nor shall execution or imposition of the sentence be suspended for any prior offense.

(3) The length of time between the prior serious and/or violent felony conviction and the current felony conviction shall not affect the imposition of sentence.

(4) There shall not be a commitment to any other facility other than the state prison. Diversion shall not be granted nor shall the defendant be eligible for commitment to the California Rehabilitation Center as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 3050) of Chapter 1 of Division 3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

(5) The total amount of credits awarded pursuant to Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 2930) of Chapter 7 of Title 1 of Part 3 shall not exceed one-fifth of the total term of imprisonment imposed and shall not accrue until the defendant is physically placed in the state prison.

(6) If there is a current conviction for more than one felony count not committed on the same occasion, and not arising from the same set of operative facts, the court shall sentence the defendant consecutively on each count pursuant to subdivision (e).

(7) If there is a current conviction for more than one serious or violent felony as described in paragraph (6), the court shall impose the sentence for each conviction consecutive to the sentence for any other conviction for which the defendant may be consecutively sentenced in the manner prescribed by law.

(8) Any sentence imposed pursuant to subdivision (e) will be imposed consecutive to any other sentence which the defendant is already serving, unless otherwise provided by law.

(d) Notwithstanding any other law and for the purposes of subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, a prior conviction of a serious and/or violent felony shall be defined as:

(1) Any offense defined in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 as a violent felony or any offense defined in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7 as a serious felony in this state. The determination of whether a prior conviction is a prior serious and/or violent felony conviction for purposes of subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, shall be made upon the date of that prior conviction and is not affected by the sentence imposed unless the sentence automatically, upon the initial sentencing, converts the felony to a misdemeanor. None of the following dispositions shall affect the determination that a prior conviction is a prior serious and/or violent felony for purposes of subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive:

(A) The suspension of imposition of judgment or sentence.

(B) The stay of execution of sentence.

(C) The commitment to the State Department of Health Care Services as a mentally disordered sex offender following a conviction of a felony.

(D) The commitment to the California Rehabilitation Center or any other facility whose function is rehabilitative diversion from the state prison.

(2) A prior conviction in another jurisdiction for an offense that, if committed in California, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison . A shall constitute a prior conviction of a particular serious and/or violent felony shall include a if the prior conviction in another the other jurisdiction is for an offense that includes all of the elements of the particular violent felony as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 or serious felony as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7.

(3) A prior juvenile adjudication shall constitute a prior serious and/or violent felony conviction for purposes of sentence enhancement if:

(A) The juvenile was 16 years of age or older at the time he or she committed the prior offense.

(B) The prior offense is listed in subdivision (b) of Section 707 of the Welfare and Institutions Code or described in paragraph (1) or (2) as a serious and/or violent felony.

(C) The juvenile was found to be a fit and proper subject to be dealt with under the juvenile court law.

(D) The juvenile was adjudged a ward of the juvenile court within the meaning of Section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code because the person committed an offense listed in subdivision (b) of Section 707 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

(e) For purposes of subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, and in addition to any other enhancement or punishment provisions which may apply, the following shall apply where a defendant has a one or more prior serious and/or violent felony conviction convictions :

(1) If a defendant has one prior serious and/or violent felony conviction that has been pled and proved, the determinate term or minimum term for an indeterminate term shall be twice the term otherwise provided as punishment for the current felony conviction.

(2) (A) If Except as provided in subparagraph (C), if a defendant has two or more prior serious and/or violent felony convictions as defined in subdivision (d) that have been pled and proved, the term for the current felony conviction shall be an indeterminate term of life imprisonment with a minimum term of the indeterminate sentence calculated as the greater greatest of:

(i) Three times the term otherwise provided as punishment for each current felony conviction subsequent to the two or more serious and/or violent prior felony convictions.

(ii) Imprisonment in the state prison for 25 years.

(iii) The term determined by the court pursuant to Section 1170 for the underlying conviction, including any enhancement applicable under Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 1170) of Title 7 of Part 2, or any period prescribed by Section 190 or 3046.

(B) The indeterminate term described in subparagraph (A) shall be served consecutive to any other term of imprisonment for which a consecutive term may be imposed by law. Any other term imposed subsequent to any indeterminate term described in subparagraph (A) shall not be merged therein but shall commence at the time the person would otherwise have been released from prison.

(C) If a defendant has two or more prior serious and/or violent felony convictions, as defined in subdivision (d) that have been pled and proved, and the current offense is not a serious or violent felony as defined in subdivision (d), the defendant shall be sentenced pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (e), unless the prosecution pleads and proves any of the following:

(i) The current offense is a controlled substance charge, in which an allegation under Section 11370.4 or 11379.8 of the Health and Safety Code was admitted or found true.

(ii) The current offense is a felony sex offense, defined in subdivision (d) of Section 261.5 or Section 262, or listed in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 290, except for Sections 266, 285, paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) and subdivision (e) of Section 286, and paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) and subdivision (e) of Section 288a.

(iii) During the commission of the current offense, the defendant used a firearm, was armed with a firearm or deadly weapon, or intended to cause great bodily injury to another person.

(iv) The defendant suffered a prior conviction, as defined in subdivision (d) for any of the following serious and/or violent felonies:

(I) A "sexually violent offense" as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 6600 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

(II) Oral copulation with a child who is under 14 years of age, and who is more than 10 years younger than he or she, as defined in Section 288a, sodomy with a child who is under 14 years of age and who is more than 10 years younger than he or she, as defined in Section 286, or sexual penetration with a child who is under 14 years of age, and who is more than 10 years younger than he or she, as defined in Section 289.

(III) A lewd or lascivious act involving a child under 14 years of age in violation of Section 288.

(IV) Any homicide offense defined in Sections 187 to 191.5, inclusive.

(V) Any serious or violent felony offense punishable by life imprisonment or death.

(f) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, shall be applied in every case in which a defendant has a prior serious and/or violent felony conviction as defined in subdivision (d). The prosecuting attorney shall plead and prove each prior serious and/or violent felony conviction except as provided in paragraph (2).

(2) The prosecuting attorney may move to dismiss or strike a prior serious and/or violent felony conviction allegation in the furtherance of justice pursuant to Section 1385, or if there is insufficient evidence to prove the prior serious and/or violent conviction. If upon the satisfaction of the court that there is insufficient evidence to prove the prior serious and/or violent felony conviction, the court may dismiss or strike the allegation.

(g) Prior serious and/or violent felony convictions shall not be used in plea bargaining as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1192.7. The prosecution shall plead and prove all known prior serious and/or violent felony convictions and shall not enter into any agreement to strike or seek the dismissal of any prior serious and/or violent felony conviction allegation except as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (f).

(h) All references to existing statutes in subdivisions (c) to (g), inclusive, are to statutes as they existed on June 30, 1993 November 8, 2006.

(i) If any provision of subdivisions (b) to (h), inclusive, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of those subdivisions which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of those subdivisions are severable.

(j) The provisions of this section shall not be amended by the Legislature except by statute passed in each house by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership concurring, or by a statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors.

SEC. 4. Section 667.1 of the Penal Code is amended to read:

667.1. Notwithstanding subdivision (h) of Section 667, for all offenses committed on or after the effective date of this act, all references to existing statutes in subdivisions (c) to (g), inclusive, of Section 667, are to those statutes as they existed on the effective date of this act, including amendments made to those statutes by the act enacted during the 2005-06 2007- 08 Regular Session , as approved by the voters, that amended this section November 8, 2006 .

SEC. 5. Section 1170.12 of the Penal Code is amended to read:

1170.12. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if a defendant has been convicted of a felony and it has been pled and proved that the defendant has one or more prior serious and/or violent felony convictions, as defined in subdivision (b), the court shall adhere to each of the following:

(1) There shall not be an aggregate term limitation for purposes of consecutive sentencing for any subsequent felony conviction.

(2) Probation for the current offense shall not be granted, nor shall execution or imposition of the sentence be suspended for any prior offense.

(3) The length of time between the prior serious and/or violent felony conviction and the current felony conviction shall not affect the imposition of sentence.

(4) There shall not be a commitment to any other facility other than the state prison. Diversion shall not be granted nor shall the defendant be eligible for commitment to the California Rehabilitation Center as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 3050) of Chapter 1 of Division 3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

(5) The total amount of credits awarded pursuant to Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 2930) of Chapter 7 of Title 1 of Part 3 shall not exceed one-fifth of the total term of imprisonment imposed and shall not accrue until the defendant is physically placed in the state prison.

(6) If there is a current conviction for more than one felony count not committed on the same occasion, and not arising from the same set of operative facts, the court shall sentence the defendant consecutively on each count pursuant to this section.

(7) If there is a current conviction for more than one serious or violent felony as described in paragraph (6) of this subdivision, the court shall impose the sentence for each conviction consecutive to the sentence for any other conviction for which the defendant may be consecutively sentenced in the manner prescribed by law.

(8) Any sentence imposed pursuant to this section will be imposed consecutive to any other sentence which the defendant is already serving, unless otherwise provided by law.

(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and for the purposes of this section, a prior conviction of a serious and/or violent felony shall be defined as:

(1) Any offense defined in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 as a violent felony or any offense defined in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7 as a serious felony in this state. The determination of whether a prior conviction is a prior serious and/or violent felony conviction for purposes of this section shall be made upon the date of that prior conviction and is not affected by the sentence imposed unless the sentence automatically, upon the initial sentencing, converts the felony to a misdemeanor. None of the following dispositions shall affect the determination that a prior conviction is a prior serious and/or violent felony for purposes of this section:

(A) The suspension of imposition of judgment or sentence.

(B) The stay of execution of sentence.

(C) The commitment to the State Department of Health Services as a mentally disordered sex offender following a conviction of a felony.

(D) The commitment to the California Rehabilitation Center or any other facility whose function is rehabilitative diversion from the state prison.

(2) A prior conviction in another jurisdiction for an offense that, if committed in California, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison . A shall constitute a prior conviction of a particular serious and/or violent felony shall include a if the prior conviction in another the other jurisdiction is for an offense that includes all of the elements of the particular violent felony as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 or serious felony as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7.

(3) A prior juvenile adjudication shall constitute a prior serious and/or violent felony conviction for purposes of sentence enhancement if:

(A) The juvenile was sixteen years of age or older at the time he or she committed the prior offense, and

(B) The prior offense is

(i) listed in subdivision (b) of Section 707 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, or

(ii) listed in this subdivision as a serious and/or violent felony, and

(C) The juvenile was found to be a fit and proper subject to be dealt with under the juvenile court law, and

(D) The juvenile was adjudged a ward of the juvenile court within the meaning of Section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code because the person committed an offense listed in subdivision (b) of Section 707 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

(c) For purposes of this section, and in addition to any other enhancements or punishment provisions which may apply, the following shall apply where a defendant has a one or more prior serious and/or violent felony conviction convictions :

(1) If a defendant has one prior serious and/or violent felony conviction as defined in subdivision (b) that has been pled and proved, the determinate term or minimum term for an indeterminate term shall be twice the term otherwise provided as punishment for the current felony conviction.

(2) (A) If Except as provided in subparagraph (C), if a defendant has two or more prior serious and/or violent felony convictions, as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), that have been pled and proved, the term for the current felony conviction shall be an indeterminate term of life imprisonment with a minimum term of the indeterminate sentence calculated as the greater greatest of :

(i) three Three times the term otherwise provided as punishment for each current felony conviction subsequent to the two or more prior serious and/or violent felony convictions , or .

(ii) twenty-five Twenty-five years or .

(iii) the The term determined by the court pursuant to Section 1170 for the underlying conviction, including any enhancement applicable under Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 1170) of Title 7 of Part 2, or any period prescribed by Section 190 or 3046.

(B) The indeterminate term described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of this subdivision shall be served consecutive to any other term of imprisonment for which a consecutive term may be imposed by law. Any other term imposed subsequent to any indeterminate term described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of this subdivision shall not be merged therein but shall commence at the time the person would otherwise have been released from prison.

(C) If a defendant has two or more prior serious and/or violent felony convictions, as defined in subdivision (b) that have been pled and proved, and the current offense is not a felony as described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), the defendant shall be sentenced pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), unless the prosecution pleads and proves any of the following:

(i) The current offense is a controlled substance charge, in which an allegation under Section 11370.4 or 11379.8 of the Health and Safety Code was admitted or found true.

(ii) The current offense is a felony sex offense, defined in subdivision (d) of Section 261.5 or Section 262, or listed in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 290, except for Sections 266, 285, paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) and subdivision (e) of Section 286, and paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) and subdivision (e) of Section 288a.

(iii) During the commission of the current offense, the defendant used a firearm, was armed with a firearm or deadly weapon, or intended to cause great bodily injury to another person.

(iv) The defendant suffered a prior conviction, for any of the following felonies:

(I) A "sexually violent offense" as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 6600 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

(II) Oral copulation with a child who is under 14 years of age, and who is more than 10 years younger than he or she, as defined in Section 288a, sodomy with a child who is under 14 years of age and who is more than 10 years younger than he or she, as defined in Section 286, or sexual penetration with a child who is under 14 years of age, and who is more than 10 years younger than he or she, as defined in Section 289.

(III) A lewd or lascivious act involving a child under 14 years of age in violation of Section 288.

(IV) Any homicide offense defined in Sections 187 to 191.5, inclusive.

(V) Any serious and/or violent felony offense punishable by life imprisonment or death.

(d) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, this section shall be applied in every case in which a defendant has a one or more prior serious and/or violent felony conviction convictions, or both, as defined in this section. The prosecuting attorney shall plead and prove each prior serious and/or violent felony conviction except as provided in paragraph (2).

(2) The prosecuting attorney may move to dismiss or strike a prior serious and/or violent felony conviction allegation in the furtherance of justice pursuant to Section 1385, or if there is insufficient evidence to prove the prior serious and/or violent felony conviction. If upon the satisfaction of the court that there is insufficient evidence to prove the prior serious and/or violent felony conviction, the court may dismiss or strike the allegation.

(e) Prior serious and/or violent felony convictions shall not be used in plea bargaining, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1192.7. The prosecution shall plead and prove all known prior serious and/or violent felony convictions and shall not enter into any agreement to strike or seek the dismissal of any prior serious and/or violent felony conviction allegation except as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d).

(f) If any provision of subdivisions (a) to (e), inclusive, or of Section 1170.126, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of those subdivisions that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of those subdivisions are severable.

(g) The provisions of this section shall not be amended by the Legislature except by statute passed in each house by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership concurring, or by a statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors.

SEC. 6. Section 1170.125 of the Penal Code is amended to read:

1170.125. Notwithstanding Section 2 of Proposition 184, as adopted at the November 8, 1994, general election, for all offenses committed on or after the effective date of this act, all references to existing statutes in Section 1170.12 are to those statutes as they existed on the effective date of this act, including amendments made to those statutes by the act enacted during the 2005-06 2007- 08 Regular Session , as approved by the voters, that amended this section November 8, 2006 .

SEC. 7. Section 1170.126 is added to the Penal Code, to read:

1170.126. (a) The resentencing provisions under this section are intended to apply exclusively to persons presently serving an indeterminate term of imprisonment pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 667 or paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 1170.12, whose sentence under the Three

Strikes Reform Act of 2006 would not have been an indeterminate life sentence.

(b) Subject to exclusions and limitations set forth below in subdivisions (b) and (c), any person serving an indeterminate term of life imprisonment imposed pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 667 or paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 1170.12 upon conviction, whether by trial or plea, of a felony or felonies that are not defined as serious and/or violent felonies by subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 or subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7, respectively, may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, within two years after the effective date of the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2006, before the trial court that entered the judgment of conviction in his or her case, to request resentencing in accordance with the provisions of subdivision (e) of Section 667, or subdivision (c) of Section 1170.12, as those statutes have been amended by the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2006.

(c) No person who is presently serving a term of imprisonment for a "second strike" conviction imposed pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (e) of Section 667 or paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 1170.12, shall be eligible for resentencing under the provisions of this section.

(d) The petition for a writ of habeas corpus described in subdivision (b) shall specify all the currently charged felonies which resulted in the sentence under paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 667 or paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 1170.12, or both, and shall also specify all of the prior convictions alleged and proved under subdivision (d) of Section 667 or subdivision (b) of Section 1170.12 or both.

(e) A person who meets the requirements of subdivision (b) may request appointment of counsel by sending to the sentencing court, a written request for representation by counsel to prepare a petition under this section and for purposes of resentencing.

(f) If the court determines that the person filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus is eligible to be resentenced under the criteria set forth in subdivision (b) and is not excluded by the disqualifying factors in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 667 or subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 1170.12, and if the court, in its discretion, determines that relief is warranted, the court shall resentence that persons in accordance with the three strikes statutes as amended by the Three Strike Reform Act of 2006, unless another law provides for a longer sentence.

(g) Under no circumstances may resentencing under this act result in the imposition of a term longer than the original sentence.

(h) Notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section 977, a defendant petitioning for resentencing may waive his or her appearance in court for the resentencing, provided that the accusatory pleading is not amended at the resentencing, and that no new trial or retrial of the individual will occur. The waiver shall be in writing and signed by the defendant.

(i) If the judge that originally sentenced the defendant is not available to resentence the defendant, the presiding judge may designate another judge to rule on the defendant's petition.

(j) Nothing in this section is intended to diminish or abrogate any rights or remedies otherwise available to the defendant.

(k) Nothing in this section is intended to diminish or abrogate the finality of judgments in any case not falling within the purview of this act.

SEC. 8. The Three Strikes Reform Act of 2006 is an exercise of the public power of the People of the State of California for the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the People of the State of California, and shall be liberally construed to effectuate those purposes.

SEC. 9. The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

SEC. 10. Sections 1 to 9, inclusive, affect initiative statutes, and shall become effective only when submitted to, and approved by, the voters of California, pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 10 of Article II of the California Constitution.

Ajs_gurl
02-27-2007, 05:44 PM
I have a quick question and I really could use some help. Im new at this and I dont know how to go about this whole thing. Does any know anything about an early release program for inmates who have an employer who will gurantee a job to an inmate upon release? Does it apply to any inmate or does it only apply to those who have already had their jackets approved??

Morris1
02-27-2007, 05:58 PM
Gigi- Is this the same bill that was brought forward last year but never made it to the ballot because of some glitch?

It looks like it has to be a ballot measure also. The next election time is 2008.

Someone who knows more about this please comment.

Morris1

GigiSoto
02-27-2007, 09:59 PM
Morris1,
I'm not to sure, but i did email the person that wrote the comment in the beginning so I hope to hear from him soon. I will post something as soon as I hear something. Sorry

Patrickj
02-28-2007, 10:40 AM
Here is the current status of AB1133 as 2/26/2007

CURRENT BILL STATUS


MEASURE : A.B. No. 1133
AUTHOR(S) : Dymally.
TOPIC : Sentencing: three strikes.:
HOUSE LOCATION : ASM

TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
Non-State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 02/26/2007
LAST HIST. ACTION : Read first time.

TITLE : An act to amend Sections 667, 667.1, 1170.12, and
1170.125 of, and to add Section 1170.126 to, the Penal
Code, relating to sentencing.


There is the link also pera PTO policy

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1101-1150/ab_1133_bill_20070226_status.html

Also registerd for email notification on this bill


NOTE. This bill may be heard in committee on March 27,2007, Has a long ways to go; Lets hope it passes committee

Morris1
02-28-2007, 03:22 PM
Notice under "Type of Bill" NON URGENCY. Thats government.

At least it is another start of something.

Morris1

cadustin
02-28-2007, 10:58 PM
So, I may not be understanding this the way I should, but this sounds like not too much of a change from the current 3 strike law. If the judge is mandated to give 5 years for each prior, for some non violent offenders it could still add up to several years in prison, possibly life. Is this just applying to violent offenders that are stated here? If anyone can give a short and sweet answer to this, I would appreciate it.

gigi... I like your idea about people sending you their stories, I suggested earlier, maybe starting a thread just for that purpose, where everyone can write their stories.

Morris1
03-01-2007, 08:39 AM
It was difficult to understand because it was written by lawyers, however it looked like the judge has the power to strike a strike. Juvenile record cannot be used as a strike before age 16. The 3rd strike had to be serious or violent which is what we need to happen. That change alone will free some people. I still wish they would put a limit on how long a strike stays on your record, kinda like DMV. They fall off after years. But it has a long way to go. Republicans will fight it. But it has a better shot now than it ever has. Let's hope.

It also made a point about previous strikes had to be "proven". I thought that was interesting. I'm not sure what it meant. Maybe if it was not proven in court to be a strike, they could not consider it as strike in a 3rd strike situation. I don't know.

Morris1

Crstnamre
03-01-2007, 09:11 PM
Personally I believe that they need to release all the non-violent, parole violators (non violent violations) sick and elderly. Once they do this, the pressure will be off. Most of the overcrowding is Level 1 and 2. Then they need to revamp the parole system, put a sentencing commission in place and fix the sentencing guidelines in this state. Sentences need to fit the crimes. Get rid of these new laws that only create more law enforcement jobs and cost the state billions of extra tax dollars. They could easily reduce the percentages on many doing 85% and it would cause no harm to the public. I would also like to see them offer Military service to many of these young men. They need direction in their lives. They can pay their debt by serving their country. My son would have taken that in a heartbeat. I would also like to see the Governor make a deal with large manufacturing corporations through-out the state to take on training and hiring of parolees. The reason many go back is that they can't find employment. Give them a tax break. It's all about money. Done! No more overcrowding. See how easy. I should be Governor!

Morris1



Yes....you should.:)

cadustin
03-01-2007, 11:49 PM
Morris1... It does seem so easy to us. I do not understand why it isn't so easy for the government to see. Are they so blind??!! If you go for governor, I'll vote for you!!

What I don't understand, Californians are all about the money, so to ease the overcrowding and get a plan in action like you describe, put it to the voters as a savings and show them where the money can go instead, make sure the voters know that it is non violent offenders who would be released, this would have to fly.

If this bill is what you are describing, then I am glad it is up again. I do hope it passes this time! I agree that the strikes should have a time limit. My husband's "violent and serious" offense was 25 years ago! That was his only one.

Morris1
03-02-2007, 12:05 AM
I agree. I few spots on television explaining the truth would go a long way in helping people understand and see the problems. But that would be too easy. Would you like to be my Lt. Governor??
LOL.

Morris1

cadustin
03-02-2007, 11:12 PM
LOL!! Let's go for it! My daughter just said she would vote for you!! Could you see it now!! Your campaign could be the black and white stripes and ball and chain! LOLOLOL

I wonder if there is any way to get a fund going or something by next year when this would hit the ballots and get a tv spot ourselves showing the overcrowding, showing how much money is being spent on the prisons that could be going for our children, etc... We could do something to show that it would not be murderers and sex offenders getting out, but someone who stole a package of diapers or pizza. The cost of that pack of diapers, $10, the cost of housing the inmate for 25 years $875,000 (without appreciation).

Morris1
03-02-2007, 11:55 PM
I am hoping with all the attention, the media won't let them exaggerate by saying murderers and rapists will be released. That is what the public would hear.

It sounds to me like Mr. Tilton is getting on board. The information highway is picking up speed!!

Morris1

Morris1
03-02-2007, 11:56 PM
P.S. Channel 9 news had Mr. Tilton at Lancaster Prison (Which one is that). It was very overcrowded and they spoke to inmates. See my previous thread.

Logan1492
07-30-2007, 02:13 AM
Thank you Morris1, I knew you would have a good direction. I have another idea, what if we start a thread with everyone who wants to write their letter then send them all like at the end of the month or in a couple weeks or something, would that help? I am going to start another letter now to get it out soon!

You can also use the Petitions Online website to create an electronic petition where people can sign on.

NEWARKLATINA
07-31-2007, 01:30 PM
Does anyone have any updated information on the early release of non-violent offenders??

JerriH
07-31-2007, 02:49 PM
Nothing other than that the 3 judge panel has been selected,,,we're all waiting to see what happens. It is of course being appealed so that will drag things out