In re Mohammad

Bad Law
12 Cal. 5th 518·288 Cal. Rptr. 3d 271·501 P.3d 635
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJanuary 3, 2022S259999California9,370 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sakauye, J.

Opinion of the Court by Cantil-Sakauye, C. J.

This case asks whether Proposition 57, The Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016, requires California’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (the Department) to provide early parole consideration to individuals currently serving a term of incarceration for a violent felony. Petitioner Mohammad Mohammad was incarcerated after having been convicted of nine violent felony counts and six nonviolent felony counts. The trial court ordered all terms to be served consecutively. After petitioner’s conviction, the electorate approved Proposition 57 in November 2016, which added section 32 to article I of the California Constitution to provide, in relevant part, that “[a]ny 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.” (Cal. Const., art. I, § 32, subd. (a)(1).)1 The ballot initiative also directed the Department to “adopt regulations in furtherance of these provisions” and instructed the Secretary of the Department to “certify that these

1 Article I, subdivisions 32(a), 32(a)(1),…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.