26 Cal.App.5th 1181
Cal. Ct. App.2018Background
- Petitioner Vicenson D. Edwards is serving an indeterminate life term under California's Three Strikes law for nonviolent offenses (felon in possession of a firearm; evading a police officer).
- Proposition 57 (Cal. Const., art. I, § 32) makes "any person convicted of a nonviolent felony offense" eligible for parole consideration "after completing the full term for his or her primary offense," defining "full term" to exclude "enhancement, consecutive sentence, or alternative sentence."
- CDCR adopted emergency and then final regulations implementing Proposition 57; the emergency rule excluded Three Strikes life-with-parole inmates from the nonviolent class, while the final rule treated them as nonviolent but barred early parole consideration for inmates "currently incarcerated for a term of life with the possibility of parole."
- Edwards filed a habeas petition challenging the regulations that denied him Proposition 57 relief; the parties disputed whether the constitutional text permits excluding indeterminate Three Strikes inmates.
- The Court of Appeal held CDCR's regulation barring early parole consideration for nonviolent inmates serving a life term with parole under Three Strikes (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3491(b)(1) as adopted) is inconsistent with § 32(a)(1) because the constitutional definition excludes "alternative sentence" when calculating the "full term."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Edwards) | Defendant's Argument (CDCR/AG) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether indeterminately sentenced Three Strikes inmates convicted of nonviolent felonies are eligible for Proposition 57 parole consideration | § 32(a)(1) excludes "alternative sentence" when computing the "full term," so Three Strikes alternative indeterminate sentences must be disregarded; eligibility is measured by the primary term that would have been imposed absent the alternative sentence | The phrase "full term" contemplates a determinate term "imposed by the court;" indeterminate terms are not "full terms imposed by the court," so Three Strikes life-with-parole inmates are ineligible | Court: CDCR's exclusion is invalid; Three Strikes alternative sentence is excluded for computing the full term and Edwards is eligible for parole consideration |
| Proper interpretation of "full term" in § 32(a)(1)(A) (does it require a determinate sentence?) | "Full term" should be calculated excluding alternatives; for Edwards that yields the upper term for the underlying offense (e.g., 3 years), which he has completed | "Full term" must be a concrete term imposed by the court; indeterminate sentencing does not yield such a term | Court: "Full term" excludes alternative sentences; the constitutional text does not limit relief to only those with determinate terms |
| Validity of CDCR's regulatory interpretation under administrative-law standards | Regulations cannot contradict constitutional text; CDCR's approach renders the exclusion of "alternative sentence" meaningless | CDCR asserts its regulation is a reasonable interpretation to effectuate public safety and administrative needs | Court: Under Gov. Code § 11342.2 standards, the regulation conflicts with § 32(a)(1) and is void |
| Remedy/timing for parole consideration | Edwards requested immediate relief and evaluation | CDCR opposed immediate relief based on its regulation | Court: Granted habeas; directed CDCR to void the challenged regulatory provision and evaluate Edwards for early parole consideration within 60 days of remittitur |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Romero, 13 Cal.4th 497 (Cal. 1996) (background on Three Strikes as an alternative sentencing scheme)
- People v. Turner, 134 Cal.App.4th 1591 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (Three Strikes indeterminate term characterized as an alternative sentence)
- Brown v. Superior Court, 63 Cal.4th 335 (Cal. 2016) (discussion of parole eligibility under Prop. 57 applying to nonviolent felony offenders)
- California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, 3 Cal.5th 924 (Cal. 2017) (principles for construing initiatives and presumption electors know existing law)
- Henning v. Division of Occupational Saf. & Health, 219 Cal.App.3d 747 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (standards for judicial review of administrative regulations)