Prop 57 passed: How can I help my loved one who is incarcerated? (Full or Parial Parole Hearing)

The Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016: Over the last several decades, California’s prison population exploded by 500% and prison spend over $10 billion every year. Few inmates were rehabilitated and most (non-Lifers) re-offended after release, at the tune of approximately 75%. Evidence shows that - the more inmates are rehabilitated, the less likely they are to re-offend.California is reducing overcrowding in the prisons following an Order from the United States Supreme Court in 2011. Hence, the passing of Prop. 57, among other laws.

Prop. 57 actually amends the California Constitution.  It adds section 32 to Article I of the California Constitution, which changes when an inmate is eligible for parole.   The (partial**)  text of that new constitutional section (that affect the Parole Hearing aspect) reads as follows:

Section 32 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:

Sec.  32. (a) The following provisions are hereby enacted to enhance public safety, improve rehabilitation, and avoid the release of prisoners by federal court order, notwithstanding anything in this article or any other provision of law:

(1) Parole Consideration: Any person convicted of a nonviolent felony offense and sentenced to state prison shall be eligible for parole consideration after completing the full term for his or her primary offense.

(A) For purposes of this section only, the full term for the primary offense means the longest term of imprisonment imposed by the court for any offense, excluding the imposition of an enhancement, consecutive sentence, or alternative sentence.

(2) Credit Earning: The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall have authority to award credits earned for good behavior and approved rehabilitative or educational achievements.

(a) The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall adopt regulations in furtherance of these provisions, and the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall certify that these regulations protect and enhance public safety.

Under Prop. 57, not everybody technically considered a non-violent offender would automatically be granted early release. Instead, Prop. 57 will allow offenders to gain credits for participating in rehabilitation programs, and then once these inmates carry out their full primary sentences, they could be considered for parole. Whether these non-violent offenders are actually granted parole is up to the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH).


Encourage your Loved ones to participate in all the rehabilitation programs available, even through Correspondence courses or writing Book Reports for self-help. The Parole Board will be looking for Self-introspection on the part of the inmate,  insight into his crime, remorse [that shows they understand the impact of their crime], Institutional Behavior, among other factors.
 
BPH PROCESSES:  It is unclear at this time if there will be a Full Parole Suitability Hearing for Prop. 57 or only a Partial Hearing, meaning a "paper review" process similar to the previous NON-VIOLENT, NON-SEX-REGISTRANT, SECOND-STRIKE (NVSS) program. As a reminder with the NVSS program, inmates were screened for eligibility at their annual unit classification committee review for NVSS qualification, as determined by CDCR case records personnel. Back then, the (2014) Three Judge Panel in the Plata/Coleman class action lawsuit had ordered  (CDCR) to create and implement “a new parole determination process through which non-violent second-strikers would be eligible for parole consideration".

We believe a full Parole Hearing should be implemented by BPH for Prop. 57, but given the early publishing of this BLOG - BPH has not had a chance to implement the Prop. 57  process - STAY TUNE!

If your Loved one is provided a CDCR Letter (General Chrono CDC-128) that they qualify to receive a Full or Partial Parole Suitability Hearing under Prop. 57 contact (619-233-3688)  the Law Office of Diane Letarte for preparation to either Parole Suitability Hearing (Full or Partial).  On the other hand, if  at some future time your Loved one is deemed "disqualified" under Prop. 57, we can be retained to provide an analysis under Prop. 57 including mailing a written Opinion Letter to your Loved One. Subsequently if there is a disagreement as to the "qualification" of  Prop. 57, it can be litigated in Court, if need be.

NOTE for “Three Strikes” : It is unclear (at the writing of this Blog) whether an argument can be made that Prop. 57 applies  to “Two Strikes or “Three Strikes” cases, especially if 3x cases are considered  "enhancements" and not Primary sentences.

=================================
** Prop. 57 also allows a Juvenile Court Judge to decide whether or not a minor should be prosecuted as an adult - not the Prosecutor (i.e., DA). Evidence shows that minors who remain under the Juvenile Court Supervision are less likely to commit new crimes. In contrast to the old way of being sentenced as an Adult and sent to the Adult prisons at the direction of the Prosecutor (DA) vs the Judge's discretion.

Proposition 57 : VOTE YES. Non-Violent Criminals & Juvenile Court Trial Requirements

The California Parole for Non-Violent Criminals and Juvenile Court Trial Requirements Initiative, also known as Proposition 57, will be on the November 8, 2016, ballot in California as a combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute. The measure was developed by Gov. Jerry Brown (D).
Its essence is to provide an incentive since Inmates use credits to reduce time spent in prison.
We all know Proposition 57 is partly another response to the 2009 federal order mandating that California reduces its prison population numbers, like the Prop 47 passage in 2014 [which reduced non-violent, non-serious crimes to misdemeanors].

Prop 57 allows parole consideration for nonviolent felons. Authorizes sentence credits for rehabilitation, good behavior, and education. Provides juvenile court Judge decides whether juvenile (as young as 14 years old) will be prosecuted as adult, not the prosecutors (i.e. District Attorneys).

LIFERS: Keep in mind that Prop 57 will not apply directly to Lifer since their crimes are almost without exception considered serious and violent. However, we believe this an action that increases sentence reform and we support its passage. 


A YES vote on this measure means: Certain state prison inmates convicted of nonviolent felony offenses would be considered for release earlier than otherwise. The state prison system could award additional sentencing credits to inmates for good behavior and approved rehabilitative or educational achievements. Youths must have a hearing in juvenile court before they could be transferred to adult court.

   The long-form ballot SUMMARY is as follows:

• “Allows parole consideration for persons convicted of nonviolent felonies, upon completion of prison term for their primary offense as defined.
• Authorizes Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to award sentence credits for rehabilitation, good behavior, or educational achievements.
• Requires Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to adopt regulations to implement new parole and sentence credit provisions and certifies they enhance public safety.
• Provides juvenile court judges shall make determination, upon prosecutor motion, whether juveniles age 14 and older should be prosecuted and sentenced as adults for specified offenses.”

 If it passes, then we need to stay tune on how the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) will actually enact Prop 57  via their Regulations.


  For additional information on Prop 57 contact:

          James Harrison

Remcho, Johansen and Purcell, LLP

1901 Harrison Street,
Suite 1550

Oakland, CA 94612

(510) 346-6200

Info@SafetyandRehabilitation.com

www.Vote4Prop57.com

Johnson v. Shaffer settlement: meaningful appeal to Lifer Psych evaluations (CRAs)

This Post is a SHOUT OUT to all Criminal Defense Attorneys, Advocates for Lifers, and Families -->  to assist  Attorney Keith Wattley with his current Objections to Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) erroneously implementing some key provisions of the  Johnson v. Shaffer  Settlement in their Proposed Regulations.

WAYS to HELP: Weigh in however you can, including writing and/or showing up at the September 2016 BPH monthly meeting in Sacramento - BPH's headquarter. Fastest is by  emailing a letter (sample below) to BPHEXE.BRDMEETING@cdcr.ca.gov or faxing the letter to (916) 322-2475.

    The Board (BPH) has submitted for the Commissioners' approval at next (2016) September's Executive Meeting a draft of its Proposed Revisions to Title 15 of the Ca. Code of Regulations section 2240 (i.e. 15 CCR 2240, draft included below.) One of the key provisions of the Johnson v. Shaffer Settlement was the requirement that BPH establish a meaningful appeal process to address errors in the Psychological reports (i.e. Comprehensive Risk Assessment - CRA) used at the Parole Suitability Hearings.  These Regulations (15 CCR 2240)  were partially the subject of the Johnson v. Shaffer settlement. Unfortunately, BPH's proposed draft does not allow for these safeguard provisions. Please join Attorney Keith Wattley in his Objections to the Proposed Regulation changes.

Attorney Keith Wattley states: 

There are many problems with this draft, but here are two of the worst:

• BPH refuse to record psych interviews under any circumstance, even though the federal court observed that recording psych interviews would be the easiest way to ensure a fair appeals process. We argued that the recording should be at the inmate’s discretion (some may not want it), and the recording would only be transcribed if there's later a dispute.  Their Chief Psychologist is under oath admitting there’s no clinical reason not to record. The Board refuses to do it solely because they don’t want to pay for it. 
  
• BPH's proposed definition of an “error” excludes too much, including the scenario where the CRA attributes statements to your clients that she or he did not make.  This makes completely un-reviewable one of the most common grievances with these Psychological reports.
  
• BPH refuses to require CRAs be provided to the Criminal defense Attorney at least 65 days before scheduled Parole hearings in order to ensure there's time to resolve disputes.  They want no deadline earlier than 10 days before the Parole hearing, which is ridiculous.
  
• They didn't even tell Attorney Wattley (class counsel for 10,000) that they were submitting this draft to the commissioners originally in August 2016, and didn't show it to class counsel before hand. 

===================SAMPLE letter below ====================

Jennifer Shaffer
Executive Officer
PO Box 4036
Sacramento, CA 94812-4036

Dear Ms. Shaffer:

    On behalf of [Organization], I write to oppose the proposed regulations regarding Comprehensive Risk Assessments, scheduled for discussion on the upcoming September 2016.

    First, we believe these regulations should provide for recording and transcription of clinical interviews – if not for all prisoners, at least for those who opt to have their interviews recorded.This is vital to ensure that the CRA process is transparent and fair. Since the current draft does not include such a provision, we find it inadequate.

    Second, we believe these regulations should allow prisoners to address a far broader range of “factual errors.”As drafted, the regulations would screen out too many legitimate and important objections – in particular, objections to a clinician’s errors in reporting on statements that a prisoner has made in an interview.

    Furthermore, we believe these regulations should provide a meaningful timeline for the appeals process. As drafted, the regulations would screen out a prisoner’s appeal of a CRA if not raised at least 30 days before a hearing. However, the Board is not held to any timeline for providing a CRA in the first place. Nor is the Board required to act on a timely appeal until 10 days before the hearing. This is unacceptable.

    Finally, [add any other concerns you may have.....here ]

    For these reasons, we strongly oppose the proposed draft regulations. We urge you to take these regulations off the agenda and to address all the problems noted before voting on any revisions.

    Sincerely,
=========================================================

The 4-page draft regulations are included below and available on the Board's agenda for the September week's meeting.