Compassionate Release (CR) in California (AB 960): What Families Must Know — Where And How to Write the Right Letter

OUR LAW OFFICE NO LONGER REPRESENT INMATES FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE. Families and Friends can write to the Institution CME (list below) to initiate the CR process.

AB 960 mandates appointment of counsel for indigent persons upon CDCR’s recommendation to court 

-------------------------------------------------- 

We have limited our practiced to Lifer Parole Hearings & Appeals from BPH Denial, 

Youth Offender Parole (SB 260/261/AB 1308), 

Elderly Parole (Statutory tract 50/20 & Federal Court Order Track  60/25)

Call: 619-233-3688   www.dianeletarte.com

 -----------------------------------------------------

While all are keeping an eye on AB 2727 and elderly parole [Elevates Age and Time-Served Thresholds] (a future blog) , hundreds of incarcerated Californians — and their families — are navigating a quieter but equally critical pathway: Compassionate Release. This process has nothing to do with the Board of Parole Hearings or sentence length. It exists for one reason: a person is so gravely ill, or cognitively incapacitated, that continued incarceration serves no legitimate penological purpose. If your loved one is seriously ill inside a California prison, this blog is for you.

 

What Is Compassionate Release? The AB 960 (2022) Reform

California’s compassionate release law — now codified at Penal Code § 1172.2 (enacted by AB 960, effective January 1, 2023, formerly § 1170(e)) — allows the CDCR Secretary to recommend to the sentencing court that a gravely ill or permanently incapacitated person’s sentence be recalled and the person resentenced. The court then has short limited days from the Secretary’s recommendation to hold a hearing and decide. This process bypasses the Board of Parole Hearings entirely — the sentencing court is the decision-maker. 

AB 960 was a landmark reform: it expanded eligibility, created a presumption of release, and mandated appointment of counsel for indigent persons — making this remedy far more accessible than it was before 2023.

 

Important: Persons sentenced to LWOP or death are not eligible for compassionate release under PC § 1172.2.

 

Who Qualifies Under AB 960 / PC § 1172.2?

A person qualifies if they meet ONE of the following two criteria:

 

•      Serious and Advanced Illness with an End-of-Life Trajectory. Under AB 960, there is no longer a rigid “six months to live” deadline. A serious, advanced illness trending toward end of life is sufficient — a significant expansion from the old 12-month terminal prognosis requirement. Examples in the statute include metastatic solid-tumor cancer, ALS, end-stage organ disease, and advanced end-stage dementia.

•      Permanently Medically Incapacitated. The person is unable to perform activities of basic daily living — including bathing, eating, dressing, toileting, transferring, and ambulation. AB 960 explicitly added progressive end-stage dementia and removed the prior requirement of 24-hour total care.

 

The presumption of release: Once eligibility is established, AB 960 created a legal presumption in favor of recall and resentencing. The burden then shifts — the State must affirmatively prove the person poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety to block release.

 

Right to counsel: AB 960 mandates appointment of counsel for indigent persons upon CDCR’s recommendation to the court. If your loved one cannot afford an attorney, request appointment of counsel at the outset.

 

How the Process Works: The CME Is the Required First Step

Under PC § 1172.2, the compassionate release process must begin at the institution through the Chief Medical Executive (CME) — also called the Chief Executive Officer of Health Care. There is no mechanism to file directly with the court. The CME’s determination of eligibility is the required first step, and once the CME confirms eligibility, CDCR’s recommendation to the court is mandatory. Here is how the pipeline runs:

 

Step 1 →  Primary care physician refers the case to the CME using CDCR Form 7478.

Step 2 →  CME reviews medical records and confirms PC § 1172.2 eligibility. Must sign off within a short amount of working days.

Step 3 →  Signed form goes to the Classification and Parole Representative (C&PR) within several working days; C&PR prepares an evaluation report.

Step 4 →  C&PR forwards the report to the Warden or Chief Deputy Warden within a few working days for review and signature.

Step 5 →  Warden sends the referral to the Statewide Chief Medical Executive, who affirms medical eligibility within a short amount of working days.

Step 6 →  CDCR’s Classification Services Unit reviews for completeness ( short turn around), then refers the matter to the sentencing court.

Step 7 →  The sentencing court holds a hearing within a short number of days and decides whether to grant recall and resentencing.

 

The court does not act until CDCR recommends. Getting the CME to move is the critical first step — which is why writing to the CME matters.

 

A family member, the incarcerated person, or their designee may independently contact the CME to request a review under PC § 1172.2, subdivision (g). This does not bypass the CME — it triggers the same internal pipeline. What it does is put the institution on notice that the family is engaged and prepared to pursue legal remedies if the referral is unreasonably delayed.

How to Write to the CME: An 8-Step Guide

Your letter must be professional, factual, and supported by documentation. Always cite PC § 1172.2 (AB 960) — not the old § 1170(e) language — in all correspondence filed after January 1, 2023.

 

Step 1: Address it correctly. Write to the Chief Medical Executive at the specific institution’s staff mailing address. The full directory for all 31 CDCR adult facilities is at the end of this blog. Do NOT use inmate mail P.O. boxes.

 

Step 2: Identify your loved one. State the full name, CDCR number, current housing assignment, and your relationship to the incarcerated person.

 

Step 3: Describe the condition specifically. Name the diagnosis, current stage or severity, and the functional limitations — what can your loved one no longer do? You do not need a firm six-month deadline. A serious advanced illness with an end-of-life trajectory, or an inability to perform ADLs including bathing, eating, dressing, or ambulation, satisfies PC § 1172.2.

 

Step 4: State the exact relief you are requesting. Ask the CME to initiate a referral for sentence recall and resentencing under Penal Code § 1172.2 (AB 960) and to forward the matter through the required institutional pipeline to CDCR’s Classification Services Unit for recommendation to the sentencing court. Citing the statute by name matters.

 

Step 5: Describe your release plan. Where will your loved one go? Who provides care? What medical coverage (Medi-Cal) exists? A credible, specific release plan — named facility, confirmed coverage, signed caregiver commitment — is what courts look for.

 

Step 6: Attach supporting documents. Include physician letters or prognosis statements, hospital discharge summaries, palliative care or specialist records, and a signed CDCR 7385 medical release authorization.

 

Step 7: Send copies simultaneously. Copy: (1) institution Warden; (2) CDCR Secretary’s office, Sacramento; (3) CCHCS Headquarters, 8280 Longleaf Drive, Elk Grove, CA 95758; and (4) your attorney, if one was retained.

 

Step 8: Follow up in writing at 21 days. If no written confirmation of a review has been initiated, follow up by certified mail referencing your original submission date. If the institution fails to process the referral within a reasonable time, an attorney can file a Writ of Habeas Corpus in superior court to compel CDCR to comply with its mandatory obligations under PC § 1172.2.

 

CDCR Institution Address Directory — Write to the Chief Medical Executive

Address all compassionate release correspondence to: Chief Medical Executive / Office of the CME / Healthcare Administration at the institution’s staff mailing address. Do NOT use inmate P.O. boxes.

INSTITUTION	ADDRESS — Chief Medical Executive / Office of CME / Healthcare Admin	MAIN PHONE
Avenal State Prison (ASP)	Chief Medical Executive Office of the CME / Healthcare Administration #1 Kings Way, Avenal, CA 93204	(559) 386-0587
California Correctional Institution (CCI)	Chief Medical Executive Office of the CME / Healthcare Administration P.O. Box 1031, Tehachapi, CA 93581	(661) 822-4402
California Health Care Facility, Stockton (CHCF)	Chief Medical Executive Office of the CME / Healthcare Administration 7707 Austin Road, Stockton, CA 95215	(209) 467-2500
California Institution for Men (CIM)	Chief Medical Executive Office of the CME / Healthcare Administration 14901 Central Avenue, Chino, CA 91710	(909) 597-1821
California Institution for Women (CIW)	Chief Medical Executive Office of the CME / Healthcare Administration 16756 Chino-Corona Road, Corona, CA 92880	(909) 597-1771
California Medical Facility (CMF)	Chief Medical Executive Office of the CME / Healthcare Administration P.O. Box 2000, Vacaville, CA 95696-2000	(707) 448-6841
California Men's Colony (CMC)	Chief Medical Executive Office of the CME / Healthcare Administration Highway 1, San Luis Obispo, CA 93409	(805) 547-7900
California Rehabilitation Center (CRC)	Chief Medical Executive Office of the CME / Healthcare Administration 5th Street & Western Ave., Norco, CA 92860	(951) 737-2683
California State Prison, Corcoran (CSP-COR)	Chief Medical Executive Office of the CME / Healthcare Administration P.O. Box 8800, Corcoran, CA 93212	(559) 992-8800
California State Prison, Los Angeles County (LAC)	Chief Medical Executive Office of the CME / Healthcare Administration 44750 60th Street West, Lancaster, CA 93536	(661) 729-2000
California State Prison, Sacramento (SAC)	Chief Medical Executive Office of the CME / Healthcare Administration 100 Prison Road, Represa, CA 95671	(916) 985-8610
California State Prison, Solano (SOL)	Chief Medical Executive Office of the CME / Healthcare Administration 2100 Peabody Road, Vacaville, CA 95696	(707) 451-0182
Calipatria State Prison (CAL)	Chief Medical Executive Office of the CME / Healthcare Administration 7018 Blair Road, Calipatria, CA 92233	(760) 348-7000
Centinela State Prison (CEN)	Chief Medical Executive Office of the CME / Healthcare Administration 2302 Brown Road, Imperial, CA 92251	(760) 337-7900
Central California Women's Facility (CCWF)	Chief Medical Executive Office of the CME / Healthcare Administration P.O. Box 1501, Chowchilla, CA 93610	(559) 665-5531
Correctional Training Facility (CTF)	Chief Medical Executive Office of the CME / Healthcare Administration Highway 101 North, Soledad, CA 93960	(831) 678-3951
Folsom State Prison (FSP)	Chief Medical Executive Office of the CME / Healthcare Administration 300 Prison Road, Represa, CA 95671	(916) 985-2561
High Desert State Prison (HDSP)	Chief Medical Executive Office of the CME / Healthcare Administration 475-750 Rice Canyon Rd., Susanville, CA 96127	(530) 251-5100
Ironwood State Prison (ISP)	Chief Medical Executive Office of the CME / Healthcare Administration 19005 Wiley's Well Road, Blythe, CA 92225	(760) 921-3000
Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP)	Chief Medical Executive Office of the CME / Healthcare Administration P.O. Box 5101, Delano, CA 93216	(661) 721-6300
Mule Creek State Prison (MCSP)	Chief Medical Executive Office of the CME / Healthcare Administration 4001 Highway 104, Ione, CA 95640	(209) 274-4911
North Kern State Prison (NKSP)	Chief Medical Executive Office of the CME / Healthcare Administration 2737 West Cecil Avenue, Delano, CA 93215	(661) 721-2345
Pelican Bay State Prison (PBSP)	Chief Medical Executive Office of the CME / Healthcare Administration 5905 Lake Earl Drive, Crescent City, CA 95531	(707) 465-1000
Pleasant Valley State Prison (PVSP)	Chief Medical Executive Office of the CME / Healthcare Administration 24863 West Jayne Avenue, Coalinga, CA 93210	(559) 935-4900
R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility (RJD)	Chief Medical Executive Office of the CME / Healthcare Administration 480 Alta Road, San Diego, CA 92179	(619) 661-6500
Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP)	Chief Medical Executive Office of the CME / Healthcare Administration P.O. Box 1020, Soledad, CA 93960	(831) 678-5500
San Quentin Rehabilitation Center (SQRC)	Chief Medical Executive Office of the CME / Healthcare Administration 1 Main Street, San Quentin, CA 94964	(415) 454-1460
Sierra Conservation Center (SCC)	Chief Medical Executive Office of the CME / Healthcare Administration 5100 O'Byrnes Ferry Road, Jamestown, CA 95327	(209) 984-5291
Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, Corcoran (SATF)	Chief Medical Executive Office of the CME / Healthcare Administration 900 Quebec Avenue, Corcoran, CA 93212	(559) 992-8800
Valley State Prison (VSP)	Chief Medical Executive Office of the CME / Healthcare Administration P.O. Box 99, Chowchilla, CA 93610	(559) 665-6100
Wasco State Prison – Reception Center (WSP)	Chief Medical Executive Office of the CME / Healthcare Administration 701 Scofield Avenue, Wasco, CA 93280	(661) 758-8400

 CCHCS Headquarters (copy all correspondence here):

 

California Correctional Health Care Services — 8280 Longleaf Drive, Building D, Suite 101, Elk Grove, CA 95758   |   Phone: (916) 691-6065 

 

 

SB 672 Is Dead — But the Fight for LWOP Reform Is Not: What California's Young Adults Sentenced to Life Without Parole Must Know in 2026

 

On February 13, 2026, advocates for California's most overlooked incarcerated population received devastating news: Senate Bill 672, the Youth Rehabilitation and Opportunity Act, would not move forward this legislative session. After passing the California Senate by a 24–11 vote, surviving committee battles, and amassing support from the Anti-Recidivism Coalition, Human Rights Watch, Latino Justice, and hundreds of families of incarcerated people — the bill was quietly shelved.

 

This article explains what SB 672 was, why it failed, what legal tools remain available RIGHT NOW for individuals aged 18–25 who received Life Without the Possibility of Parole (LWOP) sentences, and what the strategic path forward looks like for 2027–2028.

 

I. What Was SB 672? Closing the "25-Year Gap"

California has spent the past decade systematically recognizing that young people who commit crimes deserve a second look — not automatic release, but a fair review. That legislative arc began with SB 260 (2013) and SB 261 (2015), which created Youth Offender Parole Hearings for those under 18 or under 23 at the time of their offense. AB 1308 (2017) expanded that ceiling broadly to age 26 — but critically, all of these laws retained a carve-out: anyone sentenced to LWOP who was 18 or older at the time of their offense remained categorically excluded. SB 394 (2018) carved one narrow exception, opening LWOP parole eligibility specifically to those who were under 18 at the time of their crime, consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Miller v. Alabama.

 

But every one of those laws left one category out: young adults, aged 18–25, who received LWOP sentences. These individuals — numbering more than 5,000 in California prisons — committed their crimes after their 18th birthday, placing them just outside every existing relief law. SB 672 was designed specifically to close that gap.

 

"SB 672 was not a get-out-of-jail-free card. It was a get-in-the-door card — the right to ask a board of experts, after 25 years, whether you are still a danger."

 

Under the bill's framework (amending Penal Code § 3051), a person sentenced to LWOP for a controlling offense committed at age 25 or younger would become eligible for a Youth Offender Parole Hearing after serving at least 25 years of continuous incarceration. The Board of Parole Hearings would retain full discretion to deny parole. Victims retained all notification and participation rights. No one would be released automatically. The bill simply said: after a quarter century, a human being deserves to be heard.

 

The science backed it. Neuroscience has established conclusively that the prefrontal cortex — the part of the brain governing impulse control, risk assessment, and long-term decision-making — does not fully mature until the mid-to-late twenties. This is the same science that drove Miller v. Alabama (2012), Roper v. Simmons (2005), and California's own People v. Franklin (2016). SB 672 was not compassion divorced from data — it was compassion validated by data.

 

II. Why It Failed — And Why That Is Not the End

The bill's collapse was not a referendum on its merits. It was a casualty of political timing and legislative strategy. As the advocacy coalition acknowledged in their February 2026 statement, the bill had been subjected to a series of amendments during the Assembly process that would have excluded individuals convicted of domestic violence offenses or crimes involving multiple deaths. Rather than pass a gutted version that would betray the people it was supposed to help, advocates made the difficult — and, in this attorney's view, correct — decision to stand down and regroup.

 

This is not the first time California's LWOP reform movement has faced defeat before victory. SB 9 (2012), which allowed resentencing for juvenile LWOP offenders, took multiple cycles before it became law. The advocates behind SB 672 have already announced they are preparing for the 2027–2028 legislative cycle with a new, stronger bill. The people serving LWOP today are not forgotten. They are waiting.

 

⚖️  ATTORNEY TIP  If your client is one of the 5,000+ individuals serving LWOP for an offense committed between ages 18–25, document their rehabilitation record NOW. Certificates of completion, educational degrees, vocational training, self-help programming participation, disciplinary-free years (115-free), psychological evaluations, and letters of support from staff are all building blocks for the next bill — and for any existing hearing mechanism that may apply.

 

III. What Legal Tools Exist TODAY for 18–25 LWOP Prisoners

While SB 672 is dormant, other legal pathways remain available and can be aggressively pursued. The failure of one bill does not mean the absence of all remedies.

 

1.  Gubernatorial Commutation (Article V, § 8 of the California Constitution)

The Governor of California retains the power to commute any sentence, including LWOP. Commutations are rare but not impossible — Governor Newsom has granted commutations to individuals with long records of rehabilitation. The process is formal, requires a thorough application through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), and — for LWOP sentences — requires a recommendation by the Board of Parole Hearings. This is a viable, if narrow, path.

 

2.  Habeas Corpus Based on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (IAC)

If your client's original trial counsel failed to adequately investigate and present evidence of youth, trauma, or developmental immaturity at sentencing, a habeas corpus petition under Penal Code § 1473 may be available.(i.e. False evidence, new evidence, false testimony, expert testimony issues, etc.) California courts, influenced by Miller and Franklin, have shown increasing willingness to grant relief when the original sentencer never had the opportunity to weigh the mitigating factors now recognized by law.

 

3.  Resentencing Under Penal Code § 1172.1 (Former § 1170(d))

The CDCR Secretary, the Board of Parole Hearings, or a district attorney may now refer an LWOP case back to the sentencing court for resentencing. Courts have authority to impose a lesser sentence in the interest of justice. This provision has been substantially strengthened and broadened since 2022 and should be assessed for every long-term LWOP client.

 

4.  Federal Habeas Corpus (28 U.S.C. § 2254)

If there are Eighth Amendment or due process claims arising from the original sentence — particularly if the sentencing court failed to individualize the LWOP determination based on the defendant's youth — federal habeas corpus remains an avenue, subject to AEDPA's procedural requirements and the exhaustion doctrine.

 

IV. The Moral and Constitutional Stakes

The United States remains the only country in the world that sentences individuals to life without parole for crimes committed as teenagers or young adults. This is not a statistic; it is an international human rights indictment. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has condemned the practice. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child prohibits it for those under 18.

 

SB 672 was California's chance to lead — again — in recognizing that a sentence of death-by-incarceration imposed on a 20-year-old is categorically different from the same sentence imposed on a 40-year-old. The brain science, the recidivism data, and basic principles of human dignity all compel the same conclusion: individualized review, after decades of demonstrated change, is not radical. It is rational.

 

"Those who made it home have shown us the power and possibility of second chances. The failure of SB 672 is deeply personal — but it is not permanent." — SB 672 Advocacy Coalition, February 2026

 

In Pennsylvania, where juvenile LWOP sentences have been revisited following Miller v. Alabama, researchers found that of the first cohort resentenced and released, only 1.14% reoffended. This data must be placed before every Board commissioner, every district attorney, and every legislator who believes that warehousing an aging, rehabilitated person enhances public safety. It does not. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, the average annual cost to incarcerate one person in a California state prison reached approximately $127,800 in 2026 — nearly $128,000 per year to house someone who, by every clinical measure, no longer poses a public safety risk. It is not justice. It is symbolic punishment billed to the taxpayer.

 

V. Conclusion: The Next Bill Is Being Written

For families and loved ones of individuals serving LWOP sentences for crimes committed between ages 18 and 25 — do not give up. The advocates who fought for SB 672 have explicitly committed to a new bill for the 2027–2028 legislative session. That bill will be stronger, better prepared, and informed by the lessons of this cycle.

 

In the meantime, every available legal remedy must be explored. If your loved one has not had a formal legal review of their sentence in the past two years — including under § 1172.1 resentencing, compassionate release under AB 960, or habeas corpus — that review is overdue.

 

The door is not closed. It is waiting to be opened by the right key.

 

 =======================================================================

 

NOTE: Our law office no longer does Court re-sentencing  but wanted to make sure the information was published to give hope to our LWOP population. Other attorneys will gladly assist in this area of the law. We cannot refer a law office, at this time, due to potential Liability to our Law office.