In re Mcghee

Bad Law
246 Cal. Rptr. 3d 834·34 Cal. App. 5th 902
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 29, 2019A153721California4,278 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Pollak, J.

*836 *905 We confront another attempt by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (the department) to curtail the right created by Proposition 57 of numerous inmates to parole consideration by the Board of Parole Hearings (the board). Proposition 57, The Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016, added a provision to California's Constitution stating: "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." ( Cal. Const., art. I, § 32, subd. (a)(1).) 1 In In re Edwards (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 1181 , 237 Cal.Rptr.3d 673 , Division Five of the Second Appellate District struck down a department regulation that excluded nonviolent third strike offenders sentenced to indeterminate terms from parole consideration. The court rejected the department's explanation that "parole eligibility only applies to determinately sentenced inmates and, furthermore, public safety requires their exclusion" ( id. at p. 1188, 237 Cal.Rptr.3d 673 ), finding the argument "at war with the straightforward textual conclusion" ( id. at p. 1190, 237 Cal.Rptr.3d…

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.