People v. Jose Gelito Rodriguez (4/7/25): BEWARE: Statements via a Letter to the Board or CRA comments, on crime - admissible at Resentencing (PC 1172.6)

 

On April 7, 2025, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, issued a detailed opinion in the case of People v. Jose Gelito Rodriguez (Case No. B332704). The case concerned the denial of Rodriguez's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, a law that allows individuals convicted of felony murder or murder under a natural and probable consequences theory to petition for a new sentencing hearing.

Background of the Case

• Original Crime and Conviction: In 1982, Jose Rodriguez and three other individuals were involved in two separate shooting incidents on Hollywood Boulevard. The shootings resulted in the injury of one person, Don Hill, and the death of Kirk Bickford. Rodriguez was charged with assault with a deadly weapon and murder. In 1984, he pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, and the associated firearm enhancements were dismissed as part of the plea agreement.
• Plea Agreement Justification: The prosecutor at the time justified the plea agreement by stating that there were no independent witnesses to identify Rodriguez as the shooter. Furthermore, evidence from the preliminary hearing indicated that Rodriguez was under the influence of PCP at the time of the crime, which could have potentially supported a voluntary intoxication defense and reduced the charge to involuntary manslaughter. Rodriguez accepted the plea and was sentenced to 15 years to life.
• Petition for Resentencing: In a later petition, Rodriguez sought resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6. He argued that he was not the actual shooter and that his intoxication at the time of the crime could have negated the malice required for a murder conviction, making him eligible for relief under the new law. The trial court found that Rodriguez had made a prima facie showing for relief and scheduled an evidentiary hearing.

The Evidentiary Hearing and Key Evidence

During the evidentiary hearing, the prosecution presented two key pieces of evidence to prove that Rodriguez was, in fact, the actual killer and not eligible for resentencing. Rodriguez objected to the admission of this evidence, arguing it was unreliable hearsay and that its use violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

1. 2011 Letter to the Board of Parole Hearings: In this letter, Rodriguez accepted "full and unequivocal responsibility for [his] actions in this crime" and expressed remorse, stating, "I had no right to end his life, an act for which I am truly and deeply sorry for committing." He also acknowledged that he had "took that away from anyone." Rodriguez objected to this letter, claiming it was inherently coercive because inmates are pressured to "accept responsibility" for their crimes during parole hearings.
2. 2016 Comprehensive Risk Assessment: This report, conducted by a psychologist named Dr. Hobel, contained a transcribed description of the crime from Rodriguez himself. In this description, Rodriguez stated: "I was in a moving car with three friends.... A guy came up, and I shot the gun.... Then two blocks later there was an argument with another guy. As we drove past him, I shot at him, but didn't see him go down." Rodriguez objected to this report, arguing it contained multiple levels of hearsay and was coerced by the psychologist in order to improve his chances for parole.

The trial court admitted both the letter and the report, concluding that they were not coerced and that they were admissible under the party admissions and public records exceptions to the hearsay rule. Based on this and other evidence, the court concluded that Rodriguez was the actual killer and denied his petition for resentencing.

The Appellate Court's Decision

Rodriguez appealed the trial court's decision, arguing that the admission of his statements from the letter and the risk assessment report was an error. The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, affirmed the trial court's decision.

• Hearsay and Coercion: The appellate court rejected Rodriguez's arguments regarding hearsay and coercion. It held that the statements were properly admitted as party admissions. The court also found no evidence that the statements were coerced, noting that inmates are not required to admit guilt during parole hearings and that a refusal to do so cannot be held against them^.
• Fifth Amendment Rights: Crucially, the court also addressed Rodriguez's claim that the admission of his statements violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The court held that the resentencing procedure under section 1172.6 is a post-conviction process, not a criminal trial. As a result, the Fifth Amendment does not apply in the same way, and a defendant's self-incriminating statements can be used at such a hearing.

In its detailed opinion, the appellate court found no error in the trial court's decision to admit the evidence and concluded that the trial court was correct in finding that Rodriguez was the actual killer and therefore ineligible for resentencing relief under Penal Code section 1172.6.

What Happened to Prop 57 credits, The Lawsuit (that reverses CDCR credits) and the potential Assembly Bill (AB 622) to fix the "Credit mess" which would allow Suitable Lifers to be released?

BACKGROUND “P57 CREDIT” HISTORY: 

In November 2016, California voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 57, the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016. Under Proposition 57, CDCR has incentivized incarcerated people to take responsibility for their own rehabilitation by providing credit-earning opportunities for sustained good behavior, as well as in-prison program and activities participation. Under Proposition 57, incarcerated people increased their Good Conduct Credit earning, and have been given time credits for participation in Milestone Completion Credits, Rehabilitative Achievement Credits, and Educational Merit Credits.

In short, Prop 57, amended the state constitution to allow CDCR broad authority to award credits that reduce sentence lengths, or in the case of lifers, time until their first parole hearings as a way to incentivize programming and rehabilitation.

Specifically. back on May 1, 2017 CDCR had announced that Prop. 57 credits expansion in the following manner: 

Educational Merit credits (EMC) was increased from 90 to 180 days for high school diploma or equivalency approved by CDCR. This could apply retroactively to those who submitted requests for such credits on or after August 1, 2017 

Rehabilitative Achievement Credits (RAC) was increased from 7 days to 10 days for credit for completion of 52 hours of programming in a 12-month period, up to a total of 40 days credit for 208 hours of programming in a single year. These were awarded retroactively to Aug. 1, 2017, to allow those who had excess programming hours in the past to receive credit for that work. 

Milestone Completion credits (MCC) and Extraordinary Conduct credits remain unchanged in 2019. On April 2, 2019 the department began restoring credit to those who were disciplinary free for the requisite length of time following a rules violation—those credits will be restored automatically.  

Extraordinary Conduct credits was an award of up to 12 months of credit may be awarded to those who have performed a heroic act in a life-threatening situation or who have provided exceptional assistance in maintaining the safety and security of a prison.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE LEGAL FOUNDATION (CJLF) - Lawsuit Opposing P57 Credit 

On or about January 2022, a lawsuit filed by the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (CJLF), a conservative non-profit advocacy organization (whose officials include former California Governor Pete Wilson and former US Attorney General [under Ronald Reagan] Edwin Meese), challenged regulations by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) that increased the application of credits (see above) under Proposition 57.  The Sacramento County Superior Court issued a ruling on December 13, 2023, and a judgment on January 26, 2024

In December 2023, the Sacramento County Superior Court ruled in favor of CJLF. The superior court determined that Proposition 57 does not grant the CDCR the authority to use credits to advance the Minimum Eligible Parole Date (MEPD) for individuals serving indeterminate sentences. This ruling specifically impacts individuals serving life sentences with the possibility of parole whose MEPD was shortened by applying these P57 credits.

The CDCR appealed the decision to the California Third District Court of Appeal. While the appeal was pending, the superior court's ruling was partially stayed, allowing the CDCR to continue applying Proposition 57 credits to MEPDs and conducting parole hearings based on those MEPD dates. However, the CDCR is currently prohibited from releasing individuals serving life sentences whose parole eligibility was solely based on the application of Proposition 57 credits to advance their MEPD.

FAST FORWARD JULY 2025.

Finally here in 2025, is the long-awaited decision from the California Third Appellate court involving the suit filed earlier by Criminal Justice League Foundation (CJLF) against CDCR involving those individuals with an indeterminate sentence whose initial parole hearings were brought forward under credits awarded via Prop. 57 rules.

In short, the result of the lawsuit has been that those 129+ men and women, judged no longer a danger to society by a parole panel and granted a parole date cannot be released due to their potential release date being earlier than their original MEPD, calculated at the time of their sentencing.

The decision may still be appealed to the California Supreme Court, as the state Attorney General’s office and CDCR/BPH are still reviewing the specifics of the language. However, this decision comes as a disappointment not only to those still awaiting released after being granted parole, but also to CDCR/BPH, who had hoped to resolve the issue and move along with advanced hearings and releases.

The issue revolves around the argument, put forth by the Criminal Justice League Foundation (CJLF) a conservative non-profit advocacy organization, that the intent of the voters who passed Prop. 57 [in 2016] did not include applying credits under Prop. 57 to the LIFERs (ISL) population.

CJLF argued that by applying credits to indeterminate sentences (LIFERs), meant CDCR exceeded it’s authority within existing laws. Applying those credits moved the initial parole hearing date for some lifers ahead by several months, thus bringing those individuals to a parole hearing earlier than expected absent the application of credits. For those found suitable and granted parole at those advanced hearings, their release dates, conflict with the penal code.

In the latest ruling the appeals court noted:

“Although we conclude above that the department has broad authority to award credits, its power to apply those credits is a different issue. Petitioners contend section 32 does not authorize the department to use credits to advance indeterminately-sentenced inmates’ minimum eligible parole dates in conflict with existing law…Credits awarded by the department affect determinately-sentenced and indeterminately-sentenced inmates differently. Determinately-sentenced inmates’ prison terms are reduced by credits. (Pen. Code, § 2933, subd. (a).) Credits received by indeterminately-sentenced inmates “go towards advancing only their minimum eligible [parole] date[s], not their actual release from prison.”

The reasoning is ridiculous (not surprising) coming from the California Third Appellate court.

The Court continues by stating: “This information advised the voters that Proposition 57 would reduce an inmate’s time in prison by allowing the department to award them more credits. But it said nothing about advancing an indeterminately-sentenced inmate’s minimum eligible parole date with credits.”

This is followed by the court’s conclusion that “To be sure, the language [of Prop 57] gives the department broad power to award credits. But awarding credits and applying the credits awarded are two different things.”

In short, the court held that while CDCR has the authority under Prop. 57 to AWARD credits, they don’t have the authority to APPLY credits. Editor note: What does one do with credits, once awarded?

Until the state (meaning the Attorney General’s office and CDCR/BPH) decide to appeal to the state supreme court and that appeal is settled, those found suitable but not yet at their minimum release date must stay in the tender care of CDCR. The other option is to pass AB 622, Assemblyman Kaira’s bill that would retroactively and officially grant CDCR the authority the department thought it had to apply as well as award Prop. 57 credits.

THE OTHER OPTION -  AB622- where is that at? 

AB 622, authored by Assemblymember Ash Kalra, is a California bill focused on parole and prison credits for individuals serving life sentences. Specifically, it aims to clarify the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's (CDCR) authority to award credits for good conduct and program participation, potentially reducing the minimum eligible parole date (MEPD) for those with indeterminate sentences.

 In short,  AB 622 simply reaffirms CDCR’s authority to issue credits that would allow someone to advance their MEPD and be eligible to go before the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) and be released if found suitable.

This bill would enable the individuals who have completed the most significant rehabilitative programming and were found by the parole board to be appropriate to be released to re-enter under parole supervision and re-entry programming. By clarifying that CDCR is permitted to issue these credits, AB 622 ensures fairness in the parole process, reduces wasteful spending, and asserts the Legislature’s commitment to rehabilitation.  

The bill centers on ensuring that individuals who have demonstrated rehabilitation and are deemed suitable for parole are not unnecessarily incarcerated past their parole date. AB 622 primarily addresses individuals serving life sentences, ensuring they can earn credits to potentially shorten their time before parole eligibility. By incentivizing rehabilitation and recognizing progress, the bill aims to reduce the length of incarceration for eligible individuals, potentially saving California millions of dollars over time. 

The 2025 legislative session for the California State Legislature begins on December 2, 2024, and adjourns on September 12, 2025. The session is part of a two-year cycle that roughly coincides with the biennial elections. Currently it doesn’t look as though AB 622 will see much action during the rest of this legislative session, as it remains in it’s house of origin, in the Assembly Rules Committee.

The chances of AB 622 passing through its house of origin after the June 6th deadline are significantly decreased. In the United States legislative process, bills typically face a deadline to pass out of their house of origin (where they were first introduced) by a certain date within the legislative session. The deadline to pass out of the house of origin was June 6, 2025. However, bills that do not meet this deadline are not automatically "dead". They become two-year bills, meaning they can carry over into the next legislative year (in this case, 2026) and have another opportunity to advance…… time will tell.

==================================== 

CONTACT FOR AB 622

Erika Ngo, Legislative Director: Office of Assemblymember Kalra

Erika.Ngo@asm.ca.gov

(916) 319-2025

CONCLUSION:

Not the outcome(s) we wanted for both 1) the Criminal Justice League Foundation (CJLF) lawsuit and 2) the Assembly Bill 622, but the end has not yet been reached.

Further [potential] Appeals to the California Supreme Court would be time consuming to litigate and may or may not be fruitful, but possible.  All the while more lifers impacted by Prop. 57 credits are being found suitable and forced into an extended wait until release.

AB 622 (Bills in general) that do not meet the above deadline is not automatically "dead". They become two-year bills, meaning they can carry over into the next legislative year (in this case, 2026) and have another opportunity to advance.  STAY TUNED and in contact with the Legislative Director (above) to keep the Bill alive.

NINTH ANNUAL Lifer BBQ Picnic (6/21/2025)--- find YOUR LIFER or ATTORNEY (Buena Park)

Fun had by ALL again at the wonderful Buena Park (Anaheim area). Saturday 6/21/2025 was a wonderful early summer-day at the Park, with temperature hovering around 70-75  degrees with a great rolling breeze. Doc Miller made a short appearance on 6/21/2025 at the Picnic (not pictured). Doc Miller was the original author of the California Lifer Newsletter (CLN).

These Annual Lifer "get together" was started many years ago by "Doc Miller" (from his backyard, on his BBQ grill). The tradition was picked up and continued the last 9 years by Gary "RED" Eccher and Keith Chandler (aka ECC). A big SHOUT OUT to these guys and all the folks that help set up (and tear down) the chairs, tables and the in-coming food!

  

Gary "RED" Eccher and "OG" Attorney Diane Letarte. Attorney Letarte (aka Renegade Attorney) has met with released clients for over 20 years at these Annual events. She is one of the longest standing Parole Hearing Defense Attorney - going on 25 years - yes one of  the "OG" of the group. Attorney Beckman is right behind Letarte with almost 20 years and Appearing in the foursome photo with David Sloane (LSA), Diane Letarte, and Yolanda, legal assistant to the Law Office of Diane Letarte.

 

 Some prior Clients appearing at the Annual Picnic. David Garnica (ARC project of Scott Budnick for Youth Offenders and Anthony Alcaraz (Amity project) (left to right).

 

We also had some special guests appearing from the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) including Commissioner Minor (BPH) and Dr. Tehrani (FAD - Chief Psychologist (not pictured). (left to right) Keith Chandler, Attorney Michael Beckman, Venessa Sloane (LSA), LSA staff volunteer, Commissioner Minor (BPH) and her sister both flew down to attend the Lifer Picnic. 

 

 

 We also Welcomed for the first time Assemblywoman Sade Elhaway with "RED" and Keith Chandler, family member.

 

 More Fun Photos.....with Lifers and their family and friends.

The "infamous" Venessa and David Sloane from LSA (left and middle photos). Thanks for all their support to the LIFERs and their great On the Road seminars behind bars [or on Zoom] such as "Connect the Dots", etc.. They normally drive over 7 hours to come to Beuna Park for the Lifer Picnic!

 

  FIND YOUR LIFER(s) 

  

 

THE 3PM LONG STANDING ANNUAL LIFER PHOTO SHOOT

We hope to see you all next year - Pass the word – Much Fun and plenty of Food every year, with the typical grilled hot dog, BBQ style. We had additional food items ranging from pizza to fried chicken; delivered fresh and hot throughout through the day. The meals were well rounded with veggies, fruits (sweet)! We had great 75ish degree weather with a cool breezes in the typical Southern Sunny California day. It appears that over 150 people gathered thorough the day at Buena Park (ANAHEIM) from Noon to 5pm.