Thursday, August 18, 2011

CDCR Report to meet June 2012 Population Reduction Benchmark

CDCR Files Report with Court Showing State Will Meet June 2012 Population Reduction Benchmark.

Unfortunately, this reduction will not impact the LIFERs, which are considered to have a VIOLENT offense, thus not qualifying for the reduction.

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) expects to meet the Three-Judge Court’s July 27, 2012, benchmark for reducing the state’s inmate population, according to an August 16, 2011, report filed by the department. The report shows CDCR will reduce its inmate population to 155 percent of prison design capacity by the court’s benchmark date of July 27, 2012.

A new CDCR website can be viewed:
www.cdcr.ca.gov/News/3_judge_panel_decision.html



To assist in the reduction, as of October 1, 2011 Implementation of the Realignment will begin. All individuals sentenced to non-serious, non-violent or non-sex offenses will serve their sentences in county jails instead of state prison. No inmates currently in state prison will be transferred to county jails or released early.

Friday, August 5, 2011

The 3-ring Circus: Marsys' Law: thumbs up or down?

We previously reported (in this Blog) on In Re Vicks as a "good" Lifer cases, that concluded Marsy's law to be a violation the Ex Post Facto Principle. If we look at 3 consecutive months of Decisions, we find a "mix" analysis from the San Diego County 4th District Court of Appeals.

Unfortunately, the In Re Russo panel recently issued another published ruling In re Aragon, where it rejected its sister panel's In re Vicks analysis and reinforced its own In re Russo analysis!!!

Therefore, we must wait the finality of these 3 cases stated below, to know where Lifers stand on the State-Court rulings on the Question: "Is Marsy's Law considered Ex Post Facto as applied to the Lifers whose crime occurred PRIOR to Proposition 9 (aka Marsy's Law, 2008)?

CONFLICTING COURT CASES:

In re Russo (2011), Cal.App.4th (No. D057405 Fourt Dist.. Div One. April 8, 2011)

In conclusion, the Court held that Marsy's law was just an "admistrative method by which a parole release date is set..." and concluded that no ex post facto violation occurred.

In Re Vicks (2011), Cal.App.4th (No. D056998. Fourt Dist.. Div One. May 11, 2011).

In conclusion, the Court conclude the application of the amendments to Penal Code section 3041.5, subdivision (b), to inmates whose commitment offense was committed prior to the effective date of Marsy's Law (November 5, 2008) violates ex post facto principles.

In re Aragon (2011), Cal.App.4th (No. D058040 Fourt Dist.. Div One. June 9, 2011).

In conclusion, the Court rejected the In re Vicks panel's conclusion and stated that Marsy's Law does NOT violate the ex post facto principles.