Per Gov. Newsom's new Prison mission: San Quentin State Prison is to become San Quentin Rehabilitation Center

SAN QUENTIN – 

Last month Governor Gavin Newsom, announced that San Quentin State Prison — the oldest and most notorious prison in California and home to the largest “death row” in the United States — will be transformed from a maximum-security prison into a one-of-a-kind facility focused on improving public safety through rehabilitation and education. The prison, will be renamed “San Quentin Rehabilitation Center,” focused on teaching those incarcerated men who are on the verge of release how to live and succeed in modern society. 

Newsom stated “We take the next step in our pursuit of true rehabilitation, justice and safer communities through this evidence-based investment, creating a new model for safety and justice, and safer communities through this evidenced-backed investment, creating a new model for safety and justice —the California Model—that will lead the nation,” Newsom announced from the grounds of San Quentin. 

In an announcement last month, Newsom outlined with some enthusiasm, how his administration plans to “spin” corrections in California 180 degree by creating a “California model” institution, modeled on the Scandinavian concept of correctional facilities, adapted for the unique qualities of California society. 

 The Governor intends to accomplish this by not only a name change, but by physically modifying San Quentin, remodeling the old, condemned row cells and a currently vacant PIA warehouse " into a center for innovation focused on education, rehabilitation and breaking cycles of crime," Newsom's office said. The goal is the have the new facility re-made and operational by 2025 and comes with an initial price tag of $20 million. 

HISTORIC ASPECT: 

San Quentin State Prison (SQSP) is a maximum security state prison for men run by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). It is located north of San Francisco in the San Quentin, California community, which overlooks the San Francisco Bay. San Quentin State Prison was the first permanent prison in California, making it the state's oldest prison. It was the largest death row facility in the state and conducted all of the state's executions. The historic Face-Lift effort at San Quentin, never pursued at this scale in the United States, it will serve as a nationwide evidence-backed model to advance a more effective justice system that builds safer communities. San Quentin is the state’s oldest penal institution, established in 1852 with a beginning population of 68 inmates. Long the home of death row, over the years the walls have witnessed 422 executions, including 15 women. 

PRIOR NOTORIOUS LIFER INMATES: 

Charles Manson (now deceased: died from cardiac arrest resulting from respiratory failure, brought on by colon cancer) —was the most famous inmate on San Quentin death row; convicted on seven counts of first-degree murder. Sirhan Sirhan—Robert Kennedy's assassin - mow serving a life sentence at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego 

INMATE TRANSFERS: 

Those inmates remaining in the death row quarters will be transferred to other facilities, as many condemned inmates have been over the last few years. The facility will become a largely Level II facility, with some individuals with higher points accepted on the basis of behavioral overrides, according to early reports. Initially, officials expect to see about 500 transfers out of San Quentin to other facilities throughout the state. 

While the new programming at San Quentin (SQ) will focus on job training centers, life skills and is envisioned as a ‘last stop’ for those approaching release from prison (2 years pre-release time frames have been mentioned) administration officials have assured Lifers will not be excluded from the new version of SQ. 

 

EDITOR’S NOTE: We can only hope that the real change will be accomplished by both the changes in the physical facility, programs offered, and the dedication of the inmates and the CDCR Staff to make the change really work. Time will Tell….

Life Support Alliance (LSA) returning to Prison to give their impactful Lifer Workshop: Get your Loved ones involved.

 

Now that CoVid is subsiding and more institutions are allowing Program providers in to bring presentations; Life SupportAlliance (LSA) is getting invitations to bring their impactful workshops to more and more prisons (in-person).

 

Some of the workshops include: Unraveling a Parole Hearing,

Connecting the Dots, the Amends Project (e.g. how to write apology letters), among others.

 

LSA travels to the prisons to give their workshops to all Long Term Inmates (i.e. Lifers, Youth Offender, Elderly hearings, DSL, ISL) that are going to a Parole Suitability Hearing, in the future. The workshop will help them get prepared for the Parole Hearing.

 

LSA staff will go where they have the most interested people.

 

Specifically LSA will prioritize the institutions who register the most memberships!

 

If you are a Loved Ones in the free community then sign up to be a Free member of the Life Support Alliance (LSA). You will get the Free Newsletter (Lifer*Line) each month in your email inbox. The other way is to text the word “JOIN” to their automated system at 916-702-7344; which will return a link. Use the link to fill out the membership registration, right from the phone. The membership “count” will indicate which Prisons should get the in-person workshop first.

 

You can also go to LSA’s website at www.lifesupportalliance.Org. Scroll to the bottom of the page and hit the “JOIN” button to get the same form to fill out. Fill out the form with the inmates’ name and the prison location.

 

LSA can be contacted via their email address info@lifesupportalliance.org  and

 

LSA

PO BOX 277

Rancho Cordova, CA 95711

 

Thank You to LSA for all of what they do to assist the inmate population get home.

12/27/22 People v. White (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1229: A Franklin hearing does not reopen a final judgment or sentencing.

A Franklin hearing does not reopen a final judgment or sentencing; it is an “evidence preservation process” to gather data for future determination of parole, at a parole suitability hearing.

 ATTORNEY LETARTE NOTE:   Franklin Hearing (FH)  [youth offender documentation] can be very helpful if done correctly. Unfortunately these reports vary in usefulness. Some Social Worker (LCWS) can do a very good job at providing the Psychosocial background of the inmate. They will interview the inmate, family and siblings to write their report. On occasion a psychologist may write the report. If this is the case it is best to provide the FH psychologist a copy of the Comprehensive Risk Assessment (CRA), if possible ahead of the interview, to avoid conflicting facts.  Then, if properly documented it can be provided as a supplemental report to the Board's Comprehensive Risk Assessment (CRA) done by the Board's own psychologist. WARNING: Many times inmates do not disclose the "bad" upbringing to the Board's psychologist but then provide a total different picture [bad upbringing] to the FH psychologist or Social Worker. The conflicts in the social history will be a point of concerns by the Board. Be a step ahead and try to prevent any inconsistent statements between the reports.

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

Another big thank you to CCAP for the summary of this 12/27/2022 case. Republish here for Education purpose.

FACTS: 

In 2006, White was convicted of second degree murder and other offenses based on an accident he caused driving while intoxicated. He requested and received a Franklin hearing (People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261) to place on the record mitigating factors in anticipation of a youthful parole hearing. (See Pen. Code, § 3051.) 

On appeal, he argued the Franklin hearing reopened his case, which would allow application of Assembly Bill No. 518.  Held: Affirmed. 

At the time of White’s sentencing, Penal Code section 654, former subdivision (a) required a trial court to impose the longest possible term when that section applied to two convictions. AB 518, effective January 1, 2022, amended section 654, to allow the trial court to impose sentence on either conviction. Though this amendment applies retroactively to non-final cases, it does not apply to White, because his Franklin hearing was not an extended portion of the original sentencing. Though Franklin hearings follow the procedures in Penal Code section 1204, and California Rules of Court, rule 4.437, which are related to sentencing, they are not the basis for Franklin hearings. Penal Code section 1203.01, under which post judgment Franklin motions are filed, is separate statutory authority for such hearings and not part of the defendant’s sentence. (See In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439.) 

A Franklin hearing does not reopen or affect the judgment. AB 518 does not apply retroactively to final convictions. White argued that AB 518 should be applied retroactively to all convictions, whether or not final. Criminal laws generally apply prospectively. An exception to this rule was recognized in In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, which held that, absent a clear intent to the contrary, new laws that mitigate punishment are presumed to apply to all cases not yet final. Nothing in AB 518 reflects the Legislature intended to alter the Estrada presumption, as it is “silent on the question of retroactivity and provides no mechanism by which youth offenders whose convictions are final can petition for resentencing.” Failure to apply AB 518 to final cases does not deny defendants equal protection of the law. “Because Assembly Bill 518’s differing treatment of defendants whose judgments are not final does not involve a fundamental right, and defendant does not contend the measure discriminates against members of a suspect class, it need only survive rational basis review to be constitutional.” 

Under that standard, equal protection is denied only where there is no rational relationship between the disparity of treatment and some legitimate governmental purpose. That purpose exists where the Legislature or the voters decline to make new laws that reduce criminal sentences fully retroactive in order to assure that penal laws continue to have their intended deterrent effect. 

 Full Opinion Here : https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C095640.PDF