All Eyes on the Governor: AB 2727 and the Future of Elderly Parole by 9/30 ***SIGN or VETO***

 What the Final Elderly Parole Bill Does — and Does Not — Do

What Lifers Must Know | September 2026

AB 2727 (Nguyen, D-Elk Grove), the bill that rewrites California’s Elderly Parole Program for people convicted of certain sex offenses, has cleared the Legislature. After Senate amendments on August 21 and August 28, it passed both the Senate and the Assembly on August 31, 2026, the final night of session. It was enrolled and presented to the Governor, who has until September 30, 2026 to sign or veto it. As of this writing, the Governor has not acted. If signed, its main provisions take effect January 1, 2027.

Here is what the final, enrolled version of the bill actually does — and what it does not do.

What the Enrolled Bill Does

•      Raises elderly parole eligibility to 65 / 25 for specified sex offenses. People sentenced under PC 269 (aggravated sexual assault of a child), PC 288.7 (sex offenses against a child 10 or younger), PC 667.61 (One Strike, including multiple-victim cases), or PC 667.71 (habitual sex offender) — which the Legislative Counsel’s Digest describes as reaching offenses including rape and sodomy — would not be eligible for elderly parole until age 65 with at least 25 years of continuous incarceration on the current sentence. Current law is age 50 with 20 years.

•      Adds a sexual dangerousness screening for lifers. For people serving an indeterminate (life) sentence for a sexually violent offense, the Board must review a sexual dangerousness screening. If the screening indicates the person may qualify as a Sexually Violent Predator, the Board refers the case to the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) for a full SVP evaluation.

•      Gives BPH its own referral power. Until now, SVP referrals came from the CDCR Secretary and applied mainly to determinate-term and parole-revocation cases. The bill lets the BPH Executive Officer refer as well, extends the referral criteria to indeterminate sentences, and allows a referral when release would occur less than four months after a parole grant, or when a parole hearing is coming up within six months.

•      Requires commissioner training in sex offender behaviors and risks for commissioners who conduct these hearings.

•      Resets the calendar on January 1, 2027. CDCR must recalculate Elderly Parole Eligible Dates for the people covered, and BPH must cancel elderly parole hearings that were previously scheduled for them.

Current Law vs. AB 2727 at a Glance

Issue	Current Law	AB 2727 (if signed)
Who is covered	Age 50+ with 20 yrs continuous	Listed sex offenses move to a higher threshold
Listed sex offenses	Age 50 / 20 yrs	Age 65 / 25 yrs
Non-sex-offense lifers	Age 50 / 20 yrs	No change
SVP review	Mainly determinate terms	Life terms screened; possible SVPs sent to DSH
Who refers to DSH	CDCR Secretary	CDCR Secretary or BPH Exec. Officer
Scheduled hearings	Proceed	Cancelled 1/1/2027; dates recalculated
Training	General	Adds sex offender risk training

 

Families should read the chaptered text (once the Governor acts) for the exact list of Penal Code sections covered. That list decides who is in and who is out.

What AB 2727 Does NOT Do

•      It does not change elderly parole for non-sex-offense lifers. If your loved one is serving life for murder, attempted murder, robbery, kidnapping, or any other offense not on the list, the age 50 / 20-year threshold stays exactly where it is.

•      It does not create a permanent ban. The March version would have permanently excluded some offenses and pushed others to age 75 with 30 years served. Both of those ideas were dropped. The final bill raises the threshold; it does not close the door.

•      It does not change the suitability standard. The Board still decides each case individually, and must still give special consideration to advanced age, long-term confinement, and diminished physical condition. Individualized assessment remains the law.

•      It does not eliminate regular parole hearings. Elderly parole is an additional pathway. A person who loses early elderly parole eligibility still has regular parole consideration based on the sentence itself.

How the New SVP Screening Works

For a person serving a life term for a sexually violent offense, a parole grant is no longer the last step. Before release, the Board reviews a sexual dangerousness screening. If the screening indicates the person may qualify as a Sexually Violent Predator, the case is referred to the Department of State Hospitals for a full evaluation. Only if that evaluation supports it can a commitment petition be filed, and the State must then prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person meets the SVP criteria. The screening is a filter, not an automatic commitment — but it adds a second arena that must be prepared for well in advance.

Attorney Tips

Practice Points •      Hearings before 1/1/2027. A covered hearing still on calendar in 2026 may be the one that counts. Be fully prepared. •      Check recalculated dates. After January 1, confirm new eligible dates in CDCR records. •      Build for the screening now. Forensic evaluations, treatment records, insight and a release plan serve both the hearing and the screening. •      Look at every pathway. Regular parole, youth offender parole, and PC 1172.2 compassionate release. •      Retroactivity. New eligibility rules applied to old sentences may raise constitutional questions. Talk to counsel.

What to Watch This Fall

•      The Governor’s decision by September 30. 

•      CDCR and BPH implementation. Watch for guidance on recalculated dates, cancelled hearings, and how the new screening will work in practice.

•      SB 672 / LWOP Reform. Advocates are organizing for a new bill in the 2027–2028 session. Document rehabilitation records now.

The law has moved. So should you.

People v. Brinston (5/2026): when a person's medical condition has drastically worsened - how much weight should an old, stale risk assessment (CRA) still carry?

 What a Recent Court of Appeal Decision 

Means for Compassionate Release Cases 

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

[AUGUST 2026  BLOG POST (late posting on 9/1/2026) ]

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

People v. Brinston (2026) Cal. Ct. App., 1st Dist., Div. 4, 

Case No. A173470 (filed/certified for publication May 28, 2026), 

Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR-24193-1. 

 

A Critical Recent Published Decision

On May 28, 2026, California's First District Court of Appeal issued a published decision that belongs in every compassionate release file: People v. Brinston (A173470). The case addresses a question that comes up constantly in Penal Code § 1172.2 proceedings: when a person's medical condition has drastically worsened since a prior parole denial, how much weight should an old, stale risk assessment still carry?

The Facts

James Brinston was serving 15 years to life for serious sexual offenses when, in 2025, CDCR notified the sentencing court that he had become permanently medically incapacitated — unable to independently perform any basic activities of daily living.

By the time of his § 1172.2 hearing, his condition had become severe. He was belted into a customized wheelchair with no lower extremity function, fused by ankylosing spondylitis [chronic inflammatory form of arthritis] into a state his caregivers described as “like a mannequin,” incontinent of bowel and bladder, suffering from vascular dementia and recurrent strokes, and unable to rotate his neck or raise his shoulders. Every party agreed he was medically incapacitated and presumptively entitled to release under the AB 960 framework.

What the Trial Court Did

Despite that agreement, the trial court denied the petition. It reached back to a 2022 Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) denial — three years earlier — which had found that Brinston lacked insight into his offenses, scored elevated on the Static-99 for sexual re-offense risk, and displayed manipulative thinking. The trial court's theory was that even in his physically devastated state, Brinston could manipulate caregivers into harming others on his behalf.

What the Court of Appeal Held

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding this was an abuse of discretion. It found that the trial court's reliance on a three-year-old risk assessment — made when Brinston was far less incapacitated than he was at the time of the § 1172.2 hearing — was not supported by substantial evidence.

The Court's rule is straightforward and important: where a person's current physical condition forecloses any realistic possibility of committing a qualifying offense, the presumption of release under PC § 1172.2 stands. A stale BPH denial is not a substitute for a contemporaneous, condition-appropriate danger analysis.

Why This Matters for Your Loved One's Case

Brinston establishes that a trial court must evaluate a person's current physical condition — it cannot simply freeze the risk analysis at the point of a prior BPH denial. If your loved one's condition has materially deteriorated since any earlier parole hearing, that deterioration must be documented, presented, and argued to the court as new and controlling evidence.

The State's burden under § 1172.2 is to show an unreasonable risk of danger in the here and now — not three years ago. This is exactly why current, detailed medical documentation from qualified physicians is not optional in compassionate release proceedings. It is the foundation of the case.

----Attorney Tip — Brinston Practice Point

Obtain and submit a detailed, current physician's report that explicitly compares the person's present functional capacity to any prior BPH or court findings. If the BPH denied parole two or three years ago citing physical or risk-related concerns that have since dramatically changed, document that gap precisely.

Brinston gives you the legal framework to argue that an old risk picture no longer reflects reality — but you must build the evidentiary record to support it. Practical steps include:

●        Request the full prior BPH decision and risk-assessment documentation for comparison.

●        Commission a current, independent medical evaluation addressing functional capacity and any change since the prior finding.

●        Have the evaluating physician directly address whether the person's condition forecloses any realistic possibility of reoffending.

●        Present the comparison explicitly to the court — do not assume the court will draw the connection on its own.

The Bottom Line

Brinston is a meaningful tool for families and attorneys pursuing compassionate release under PC § 1172.2, particularly where an earlier parole denial might otherwise be used to override a presumption of release. Courts must look at the person as they are today — not as a stale record once described them.

 

This blog post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is different — consult an attorney to evaluate the specific facts of your loved one's situation.

TENTH ANNUAL Lifer BBQ Picnic (6/27/2026)--- find YOUR LIFER or ATTORNEY (Buena Park)

 

TENTH ANNUAL Lifer BBQ Picnic (6/27/2026)--- find YOUR LIFER or ATTORNEY (Buena Park)

Fun had by ALL again at the wonderful Buena Park (Anaheim area). Saturday 6/27/2026 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 6/27/2025 at the Picnic (caught on picture with Renegade Attorney). "Doc Miller" was the original author (Founder) of the California Lifer Newsletter (CLN).

These Annual Lifer "get together" was started many years ago by Keith Chandler and then moved to "Doc" Miller's backyard, on his BBQ grill. The tradition was moved again and continued the last 10 years by Gary "RED" Eccher and Keith Chandler (aka ECC) at the Park. 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! 

 

     

 

1^st photo (Left): Gary "RED" Eccher and 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 - over 25 years - yes one of  the "OG" of the group. 

2^nd Middle photo: Attorney Letarte (aka Renegade Attorney) and the real “OG” who started the get together which eventually became the Annual “bigger get together” party à  Keith Chandler. 

3^rd photo (Right): Attorney Letarte (aka Renegade Attorney) and the infamous John Dannenberg of the (In re Dannenberg – 2007) and Attorney Michael Beckman.

 

                     

Attorney Letarte and x-client David Garnica (ARC)   David Sloane (LSA) and Yolanda (Letarte office)

On or about 2013, I received a call from Hollywood film producer Scott Budnick regarding my “then incarcerated client” youth offender David Garnica. Scott and I talked about his Youth Offender Project now called the Anti-Recidivism Coalition (ARC); a Los Angeles-based non-profit that mentors incarcerated youth, provides reentry services, and advocates for justice reform. David Garnica was one of the first IP Youth to go through his Prison program, within CDCR. David is now a representative at the ARC – giving back by helping other Lifers and enjoying the Annual BBQ Party.

 

                   

    Letarte's x-client In re Vicks (2013), Yolanda           Attorney Letarte & CLN Founder “Doc” Miller

 

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

We also had some SPECIAL GUESTS appearing from the Board of Parole Hearings, including a couple of BPH Commissioners and the head of the BPH FAD (Forensic Assessment Division).

 

Vanessa (LSA), Atty Beckman, FAD       LSA, Attorneys Beckman & Norton           Fun group around the food tables

 

                                      

 Group at tables and BPH Commissioner                              Attorneys Beckman, Norton, Gilbert

  

        

  Fun in the shade at Buena Park                              Fun at grill and food tables]                     “Red” and BPH Commissioner 

 

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

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 cool breezes in the typical Southern Sunny California day. It appears that over 200 people gathered thorough the day at Buena Park (ANAHEIM) from Noon to 5pm.