In re Bisel CA5, F080372

Petitioner Gregory Bisel was convicted in 2014 of two counts of annoying or molesting a minor and has a prior conviction requiring sex-offender registration; he received an aggregate 15-year, 8-month sentence.
Proposition 57 (2016) amended Cal. Const. art. I, § 32 to make persons convicted of nonviolent felonies eligible for parole consideration after serving the full term of their primary offense and directed CDCR to adopt implementing regulations.
CDCR initially excluded inmates with current or prior registerable sex-offense convictions from “nonviolent offender” parole consideration in its regulations; the May 2018 regulations expressly treated such inmates as ineligible.
The California Supreme Court in In re Gadlin invalidated those categorical exclusions and directed CDCR to repeal and conform its regulations to Proposition 57.
CDCR adopted emergency regulations in April 2021 repealing the invalid provisions and set deadlines requiring referral of determinately sentenced offenders (with eligibility dates on or before July 1, 2021) to the Board of Parole Hearings; CDCR calculated Bisel’s nonviolent parole eligibility date as August 6, 2018 and referred him for parole review.
Because CDCR has referred Bisel for parole consideration as required by the new regulations, the Court found Bisel has received the relief he sought and concluded the petition is moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CDCR's regulations excluding inmates with registerable sex‑offense convictions conflicted with Prop 57	Bisel: the regulations unlawfully excluded him from nonviolent parole consideration in violation of art. I, § 32	AG/CDCR: regulations lawfully denied early parole consideration to registrants	Court did not decide merits here; Supreme Court in Gadlin already held such categorical exclusions invalid and CDCR repealed them
Whether Bisel is entitled to relief now that the invalid regulations were repealed	Bisel: even if referred, the prior unlawful delay warrants court-ordered relief or expedited hearing	AG: Gadlin and CDCR's new regs render the petition moot because CDCR must refer and has referred him	Petition is moot because CDCR has calculated eligibility and referred Bisel for parole consideration as required
Whether the court may order expedited parole-suitability hearing or immediate release if found suitable	Bisel: court should direct CDCR/Board to expedite and order immediate release upon a suitability finding	AG: timing of suitability hearings is within CDCR/Board discretion; court should not order scheduling relief	Court declined to order expedition or release; timing of parole suitability hearings lies with CDCR and the Board and the claim was not in the original petition

In re Gadlin, 10 Cal.5th 915 (invalidating CDCR regulations that categorically excluded registerable sex-offense convictions from Proposition 57 parole consideration)
In re Arroyo, 37 Cal.App.5th 727 (holding habeas petition moot where amended regulation made petitioner eligible for early parole consideration)
In re McGhee, 34 Cal.App.5th 902 (distinguishing CDCR parole-eligibility determinations from Board parole-suitability decisions)
In re Lawley, 42 Cal.4th 1231 (limits on expanding claims beyond those pleaded in the petition)
In re Clark, 5 Cal.4th 750 (same rule on scope of claims in habeas proceedings)
In re Stephon L., 181 Cal.App.4th 1227 (defining mootness where court ruling can no longer provide effective relief)