HISTORICAL BACKGROUND of Elderly Parole Hearing Bills:
Summary of the OLD Elderly Parole Hearing (50/15) Senate Bill that did NOT pass a few years ago, was SB224.
The original draft of Senate Bill [Sen. Carol Liu (Democrat), author of Senate Bill 224 (SB224)] required the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) to conduct a ELDERLY PAROLE HEARING for offenders sentence to State prison who have reached 50 years of age and have been incarcerated 15 years or more. SB 224 was withdrawn from consideration because it was felt that Bills which required a 2/3 majority vote on the legislative floor, could not be met.
NOTE: This would have been an expansion from the existing BPH regulation (from 3-Judge Panel) that was established in October 2014 to allow 60 yr. old inmates who have been incarcerated 25 years (60/25) or more to go to an Elderly Parole Hearing.
================================================
Summary of the NEW Elderly Parole Hearing (50/20) - AB3234, being signed by Gov.
Abstract & Author: Philip Y. Ting: California Assembly member Democrat District 19
Existing law establishes the Elderly Parole Program for the purpose of reviewing the parole suitability of inmates who are 60 years of age or older and who have served a minimum of 25 years of continuous incarceration on their sentence. This bill would modify the minimum age limitation for that program to 50 years of age and instead require the inmate to have served a minimum of 20 years of continuous incarceration in order to be eligible for that program.
On 9/15/20, California State Legislature Enrolled and presented AB3234, the new (Elderly Parole Hearing Bill) to the Governor at 3 p.m. for his signature of Approval.
Since AB 3234 has passed and from all indications will be signed by the Gov, elderly parole goes from the current 60 yrs old and at least 25 yrs on incarceration (60/25 requirement) to 50/20 requirement. What a WIN!!!
Although the Bill specifically excludes 3Xers, as did the previous bill that codified elderly parole. It appears according the Vanessa (LSA guru and founder) --> that BPH's legal staff stated [in reference to 3Xers and elderly: ]
“We would continue to follow the three judge panel (3JP) order criteria for those inmates who are excluded from elderly parole under AB3234 for as long as the three judge panel order remains intact. This will require us [BPH] to set up a double track process for those eligible under the Penal Code and those under the three judge panel order.”
So for now, and as long as the 3JP is still around, 3’Xers will continue to be included in elderly parole considerations.
The BIG QUESTION remains: Will BPH continue the 3’Xers under the current 60/25 requirement or will BPH apply the new 50/20 requirement to the 3X'er - STAY TUNE....
Keep in mind that the whole Intent under 3JP was to reduce the population. Thus, excluding an entire section of 3X'er elderly inmates (that are not 50/20 candidates) would conflict with the goal to reduce the population. We speculate that BPH will apply the 50/20 elderly age requirement across the Board to all those inmates.
How long before this new bill will take affect. Will it be next year
ReplyDelete1) The Bill is eff. 1/1/2021 but BPH will be given a timeframe to process the new candidates. Normaly the law provides for 1 to 2 year span to process all the candidates
ReplyDelete2) It appears that the 60/25 3'Xers will still be allowed an Elderly parole hearing under THAT criteria. Based on the 3JP guidelines.
3) As of the writing of this note (November) it appears that BPH will NOT included the 3X'er in the 50/20 new law since AB3234 specifically excluded the 3Xers.
So as a 3ed striker with 20 yrs in and 53 years old, I would not see relief under this bill?
ReplyDeletecorrect. it now appears that only the 60/25 rule will apply to 3'Xer with BPH
DeleteMy son will be 50 in early March and has been incarcerated since 2000,will he be considered for release? What are the guidelines for release? Are there any conviction restrictions?
ReplyDeleteits best to have him write to our law office (its via legal confidential mail) with a copy of his Abstract of Judgment (AOJ, normally found in his Central file), we can then reply to him directly. (no charge)
ReplyDeleteMy husband will be 50 years in May 2021. He has served 29 years of his 29 to Life sentence. He had his regular hearing this month and was denied for 3 years. Would he qualify under this bill?
ReplyDeleteat his next hearing - he will fall under the 50/20 elderly parole hearing criteria - if he is not a 3rd X'er
DeleteMy husband turned 50 in November 2020. Should he write to the board to request a elderly parole hearing?
ReplyDeletethe Board and CDCR are working together to identify the candidates. there is a 2 year window for BPH to identify and bring the candidates to an elderly hearing. no action needed on the side of the inmate UNLESS there was an error with identification of the candidate.
ReplyDeleteMy husband is 56 and has been in for 26th straight years.he's in valley State prison and he got denied by his counselor saying he's not eligible his sentence was 25 to life I don't understand why he was denied can you help me Lisa Smith
ReplyDeleteif he is a 3rd striker: he is excluded from the 50/20 but may qualify for the 60/25 Elderly parole. Have him write to us with the paperwork that his Counselor gave him
DeleteMy brother is a second strike offender who is 52 years old and been incarcerated for 21 years on a 34 year sentence. He was told by BPH that he was not eligible for AB 3234 because he is a second striker. Is this true?
ReplyDeleteHave your brother write to our law office with his Abstract of Judgment (AOJ). He can get a copy of the AOJ from his C-file.
ReplyDeleteHow does my husband apply for this he us currently in prison
ReplyDeleteno need to apply, CDCR will do the calculation and let him know if he qualifies.
DeleteWhat is a court order elderly parole hearing? Is that the same thing or is that diff?
ReplyDeleteCourt Order is from the 3-judge panel mandate. requirement is 60 yrs old and 25 yr requirements down, includes 3X'er. As oppose to the statutory (AB3234) which is 50/20 but excludes 3X'er
ReplyDelete