In re Edwards
237 Cal. Rptr. 3d 673
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- Petitioner Vicenson D. Edwards is serving an indeterminate life term under California's Three Strikes law for nonviolent offenses (felon in possession and evading), imposed in 1998.
- Proposition 57 (Cal. Const., art. I, § 32) (2016) makes any person convicted of a nonviolent felony "eligible for parole consideration after completing the full term for his or her primary offense," and defines "full term for the primary offense" to exclude enhancements, consecutive sentences, and alternative sentences.
- CDCR adopted emergency and later final regulations implementing Prop. 57. The emergency regs excluded inmates serving life with possibility of parole from the definition of "nonviolent offender."
- The final regulations treated such inmates as "nonviolent" but made inmates ineligible for early parole consideration if they were "currently incarcerated for a term of life with the possibility of parole for an offense that is not a violent felony."
- Edwards petitioned for habeas corpus arguing CDCR's regulations unlawfully exclude Three Strikes indeterminate-sentence inmates from Prop. 57 relief; the trial court issued an order to show cause and the parties litigated whether the regs comport with § 32(a)(1).
- The court held the regulations that bar Edwards and similarly situated inmates are inconsistent with § 32(a)(1) and void; Edwards must be evaluated for early parole consideration within 60 days of remittitur.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Edwards) | Defendant's Argument (CDCR/AG) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CDCR can exclude Three Strikes inmates serving indeterminate life with parole from Prop. 57 eligibility | § 32(a)(1)'s exclusion of alternative sentences requires calculating eligibility as if the Three Strikes alternative sentence did not exist; Edwards completed the primary (upper) term and is eligible | "Full term" language applies only to determinate sentences; indeterminate sentences were intended to be excluded because courts do not "impose" a fixed term | Regulations excluding Three Strikes indeterminate inmates are invalid; such inmates are eligible and must be considered for early parole after computing the primary term excluding the alternative sentence |
| How to compute "full term for the primary offense" for indeterminate Three Strikes inmates | Calculate as the longest term for the underlying offense excluding alternative sentence; here the upper term (3 years) governs eligibility | "Full term" refers to an imposed fixed term; an indeterminate sentence means no completed imposed term exists | Court interprets exclusion of alternative sentence to mean compute eligibility as if Three Strikes alternative had not been imposed; Edwards had completed the primary term and is eligible |
| Whether CDCR's regulatory interpretation is a permissible administrative construction | Prop. 57's text and voters' intent favor eligibility for nonviolent offenders, including those with Three Strikes alternative sentences | CDCR's construction protects public safety by limiting eligibility to determinately sentenced inmates | Agency regulations cannot conflict with the constitutional text; CDCR's regulations are void insofar as they bar relief |
| Remedy and administrative duty | Edwards sought immediate parole consideration | CDCR sought to uphold adopted regs | Habeas granted; CDCR must repeal/void the offending reg provision and evaluate Edwards within 60 days |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Romero, 13 Cal.4th 497 (explaining Three Strikes as an alternative sentencing scheme)
- People v. Acosta, 29 Cal.4th 105 (describing calculation of indeterminate minimum terms under Three Strikes)
- People v. Turner, 134 Cal.App.4th 1591 (Three Strikes indeterminate term is an alternative sentence)
- People v. Frutoz, 8 Cal.App.5th 171 (confirming Three Strikes as an alternative sentencing scheme)
- Brown v. Superior Court, 63 Cal.4th 335 (discussing parole suitability under the Prop. 57 framework)
- People v. Pennington, 3 Cal.5th 786 (statutory construction should harmonize provisions)
- People v. Valencia, 3 Cal.5th 347 (rejecting reliance on arcane legal jargon for voter intent)
- People v. Gallardo, 4 Cal.5th 120 (treatment of doubled terms under the Three Strikes law and eligibility implications)
- California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, 3 Cal.5th 924 (principles for construing initiatives and presuming voter awareness of existing law)