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.
