34 Cal.App.5th 902
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- Petitioner Tijue McGhee pleaded guilty to first‑degree burglary in 2012 and received an aggregate term including a five‑year prior‑conviction enhancement.
- Proposition 57 (Cal. Const., art. I, § 32 (Nov. 2016)) provides that any person convicted of a nonviolent felony and sentenced to state prison "shall be eligible for parole consideration after completing the full term for his or her primary offense," and delegated rulemaking to the CDCR.
- CDCR implemented regulations (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3492) creating a two‑tier process: (1) department screening using eight categorical misconduct criteria, and (2) referral to the Board of Parole Hearings only if the inmate passes screening.
- McGhee was deemed "eligible" under § 32 but was not referred to the Board because of in‑prison disciplinary findings (possession of an inmate‑manufactured weapon and placement in SHU), so he sought habeas relief after administrative appeals were exhausted.
- The central legal question was whether "parole consideration" under § 32(a)(1) requires consideration by the Board of Parole Hearings and whether CDCR may preclude otherwise eligible inmates from a board hearing based on in‑prison misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 32(a)(1) entitles eligible nonviolent inmates to parole consideration by the Board of Parole Hearings | McGhee: "parole consideration" means consideration for release by the Board; CDCR cannot bar referral | CDCR: § 32 permits a two‑tiered process; department screening is part of "parole consideration" and can deny referral | Held for McGhee: "parole consideration" requires Board review; CDCR cannot categorically exclude otherwise eligible inmates from Board consideration |
| Whether CDCR’s screening regulation conflicts with § 32 and is beyond CDCR’s rulemaking authority | McGhee: screening that prevents Board review conflicts with constitutional text and ballot materials | CDCR: regulation is a reasonable procedural implementation and necessary for public safety and manageable workload | Held for McGhee: regulation conflicts with § 32 and is invalid; CDCR may not promulgate rules inconsistent with the constitutional mandate |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Edwards, 26 Cal.App.5th 1181 (construing § 32 and invalidating CDCR rules that excluded some inmates from board consideration)
- In re Gadlin, 31 Cal.App.5th 784 (holding CDCR cannot exclude inmates serving for nonviolent felonies from Board consideration based on prior registrable sex‑offender status)
- In re Lawrence, 44 Cal.4th 1181 (describing role and standards of the Board of Parole Hearings and "parole consideration" framework)
- People v. Valencia, 3 Cal.5th 347 (use of ballot materials to ascertain voter intent when construing initiatives)
- Ontario Cmty. Founds., Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 35 Cal.3d 811 (administrative regulations cannot conflict with governing statute)