In re Ontiveros, D077905

Israel Ontiveros was convicted in two separate proceedings and received consecutive determinate prison terms (an aggregate effective term of over 26 years). One conviction included robbery (a violent felony under Penal Code § 667.5(c)).
In 2019 Ontiveros sought early parole consideration under Proposition 57 (Cal. Const., art. I, § 32), which makes persons convicted of nonviolent felonies eligible for parole consideration after completing the full term for their primary offense.
CDCR denied his petition based on its implementing regulation excluding inmates who are "currently serving a term of incarceration for a 'violent felony.'" The state trial court denied habeas relief; Ontiveros appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Ontiveros relied principally on In re Mohammad, which read Proposition 57 to make any inmate with at least one nonviolent felony eligible for early parole consideration even if also serving for violent felonies.
The Attorney General and CDCR argued Mohammad produced an absurd result and relied on more recent appellate decisions (In re Viehmeyer and In re Douglas) rejecting Mohammad's interpretation.
The Court of Appeal agreed with Viehmeyer and Douglas, concluded a literal reading would produce an absurd and unreasonable outcome inconsistent with Proposition 57’s purpose (enhancing public safety), and denied the petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an inmate serving determinate sentences for both violent and nonviolent felonies is eligible for early parole consideration under Prop. 57	Mohammad/ Ontiveros: the text unambiguously makes any person convicted of "a nonviolent felony offense" eligible, so a mixed-offender qualifies	AG/CDCR: literal reading conflicts with voter intent, yields absurd policy (rewards more crimes), and should be rejected	Court rejected Mohammad: mixed-offenders are not entitled to early parole consideration under Prop. 57; literal reading would be absurd and contrary to the initiative’s purpose
Whether CDCR’s regulation excluding inmates serving terms for violent felonies is invalid under Prop. 57	Ontiveros: regulation is inconsistent with a literal reading that would allow eligibility	CDCR/AG: regulation is a reasonable, authorized implementation to effectuate Prop. 57 and protect public safety	Court upheld the regulatory approach and denied habeas relief; Ontiveros failed to show CDCR erred

In re Mohammad, 42 Cal.App.5th 719 (adopted literal reading that any inmate with a nonviolent felony conviction is eligible under Prop. 57)
In re Viehmeyer, 62 Cal.App.5th 973 (rejected Mohammad; held literal reading leads to absurd results and conflicts with Prop. 57’s purpose)
In re Douglas, 62 Cal.App.5th 726 (same: rejected Mohammad and explained literal interpretation would encourage commission of an additional nonviolent felony)
In re Gadlin, 10 Cal.5th 915 (describes standard for reviewing validity and consistency of agency regulations implementing Prop. 57)
In re Reeves, 35 Cal.4th 765 (explains that multiple consecutive determinate terms are combined into a single aggregate term)